Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Haiti earthquake conspiracy theories


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   no consensus. After a good deal of discussion, it appears that there is not consensus for deletion at this time. This could certainly be revisited at a later date, however. Cirt (talk) 00:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

2010 Haiti earthquake conspiracy theories

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

While there are certainly a fair number of references, we have to ask if this is really within the range of what Wikipedia aims to provide. Is this list of conspiracy theories - including allegations that the earthquake was purposefully caused - actually encyclopedic, or is it better suited to a different site altogether? Ckatz chat spy  07:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge with 2010 Haiti earthquake It outlines conspiracy theories without asserting them to be true, thus it is relevant and factual. But not distinct enough to be separate from the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.136.156 (talk) 16:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment does it meet WP:FRINGE ? 70.29.210.242 (talk) 08:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * WP: FRINGE should not be interpreted to mean that Wikipedia cannot have articles about fringe topics (such as Haiti conspiracy theories), it simply provides guidelines for how to write such articles. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. The nomination seems to be based on an assertion that Wikipedia doesn't cover conspiracy theories. Since we don't have that policy the article must be judged on regular notability guidelines, which it appears to satisfy. __meco (talk) 08:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * True. But Wikipedia also has a tradition of matching the title of an article with its actual content and the bulk of the article has nothing to do with conspiracy theories. I also don't buy the notability argument: a theory isn't notable simply because a source shows that someone formulated it. Pichpich (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you saying you think we should rename this article, rather than deleting it? If so, which title do you suggest? Stonemason89 (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ¨¨ victor  falk  00:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete It seems there is nothing notable here that can't be adequately covered in other articles. The HAARP claim doesn't have reliable sources, the "concerns over military occuption" claim is not really a conspiracy theory and the rest doesn't meet WP:FRINGE and so certainly shouldn't be given undue weight by having it's own article.-- Pontificalibus (talk) 09:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I see very little encyclopedic value beyond WP:FRINGE at best, and even then I am skeptical...Modernist (talk) 12:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So, where exactly in our notability guidelines do you personally see that this article fails, since you obviously don't want to cast your vote per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. __meco (talk) 13:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:UCS, WP:NPOV, Verifiability, WP:NOR for starters...Modernist (talk) 13:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, WP:UCS (Use common sense) has as much wight in an AfD discussion as the aforementioned WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
 * WP:NPOV. That is a guideline for balancing articles to avoid bias towards one position or another. It is blatantly inapplicable as an argument for article deletion. Moreover, noone, not even yourself has presented any argument to the effect that this article is written from a non-neutral point of view.
 * Verifiability? What about it? And even if the article were plagued by unverifiable assertions (which it obviously isn't), like the preceding policy this applies to how an article should be written and is not a guideline to be applied during AfD the way you appear to do.
 * WP:NOR. No original research. Also completely spurious to bring up with reference to the current article. It is adequately referenced and not based on original research.
 * All in all your entire argument dissipates and your IDONTLIKEIT remains when all your smokescreens have been blown away. __meco (talk) 14:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And you remain at one with WP:ILIKEIT, and I completely disagree with your analysis. If you do not think the theories put forth in this article are not original research and non-neutral - (Pat Robertson), or unverifiable - Robertson again, HAARP, etc, There is no conversation here...Modernist (talk) 14:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You are obviously completely misguided as to what is meant by "original research" in Wikipedia's guideline. It refers to original research by Wikipedia's editors. If anyone does research or present their opinions and this is covered by third-party sources that is not what is meant by that term in our guidelines. __meco (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And I feel sorry for you pal, If you cannot see the hate-mongering, anti-semitic, rumor driven drivel concerning the Israelis for the original research spin that it is...Modernist (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Be careful Modernist, you are heading pretty close to personal attack territory with that one. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, Wikipedia already has a lot of articles about hate-mongering, anti-semitic, rumor driven drivel-spouting bigots. See . Are you seriously suggesting you think we should delete all of the articles in that category? Stonemason89 (talk) 20:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep and Move to Alternative views of the 2010 Haiti earthquake. No fewer than four national governments, those of Iran, Nicaragua, Bolivia and Venezuela, have advanced various conspiracy theories concerning the earthquake in Haiti. Definitely notable. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * NOTE: My vote was initially Keep, but I changed it to Move/Rename. I believe Alternative views of the 2010 Haiti Earthquake is a better title not only because it dovetails with WP: WikiProject Alternative Views, but also because it is more broadly-encompassing than "conspiracy theories" and can include non-mainstream opinions that would not fall under the conspiracy theory label: specifically, actor Danny Glover's fringy claim that the earthquake was caused by manmade global warming and the failure of the Copenhagen summit. Stonemason89 (talk) 03:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment National governments have only expressed concern about military occupation of Haiti, which as I have noted on the talk page does not really belong in this article. Claims about HAARP and organ harvesting were only made on state-controlled media (not the same as an official government position), and one of those was swiftly withdrawn.-- Pontificalibus (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I get your point. This is one of the reasons why I ultimately decided to change my vote to Move, since the new title would be more inclusive. Stonemason89 (talk) 03:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete I'm quite certain we can mention that a bunch of tin pot dictatorships are pushing an anti-american agenda without giving them undue weight. I'm sure there is an article discussing international response to the quake that can hold this trivia quite easily. Resolute 14:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Be careful to avoid pushing an Americo-centric point of view, per Wikipedia regulations. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - as evidenced by the references in the article, this topic has received non-trivial coverage in multiple independent sources. Therefore, it is notable enough for an article per the GNG. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 14:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the references in the article simply show that a lot of nonsense has been spewed on the quake. As I point out below, only the HAARP accusation can truly be considered as a conspiracy theory. Pichpich (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - The references that I have looked at appear to be no more than gossip. For instance, I wasted my time learning that it has been proven that Isreal harvested organs in Palestine, so look out!, they might try to harvest them in Haiti as well! - that sort of trash. Not all all appropriate for Wikipedia. Gandydancer (talk) 15:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly which references are you referring to with that statement? I could try to find better ones if you'd be specific about your objections. Besides, I don't think it's actually been proven that Israel harvested organs in Palestine, like you claim. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not suggesting it has been proven...I said I felt that the refs that I've looked at were not reliable. I looked at the Youtube video.  I also am far from satisfied with the supposed link between Chavez and what he supposedly said re the US causing the quake.  Using his warnings about US occupation in Haiti to connect him takes quite a stretch of the imagination. You don't need to look any farther than the US to find similar warnings.  Many well-respected US journalists are saying the same thing. Gandydancer (talk) 15:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Which ones? Stonemason89 (talk) 15:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment for the nominator; you asked "...or is it better suited to a different site altogether?" With that statement, are you suggesting that this article be transwikied? If so, which wiki do you propose moving it to? Stonemason89 (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Very Weak Keep - I am disgusted by these theories, but I'm sure they will find their way on to Wikipedia somehow and I'd rather seem them confined on this page rather than inserted into the main articles. But I'd only want to see theories advocated by notable people, such as a head of state, be include. Than again, I think some of these heads of state actually get their news from nutball blogs.David Straub (talk) 15:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - no reason to delete - TouLouse (talk) 16:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong delete The problem is that the article gathers a lot of unrelated material. Robertson's "pact with the devil" is not a conspiracy theory since, presumably, the devil doesn't really need co-conspirators. Chavez' criticism is not a conspiracy theory. It's a criticism of the US' ulterior motive and regardless of the merit of this criticism, it has little to do with a conspiracy. The ludicrous HAARP thing can be covered in the HAARP article, especially since there's little if any material on the subject. As for the organ harvesting, it's not Haiti-specific: it's an accusation that comes up whenever the IDF is in the news. Pichpich (talk) 17:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "...presumably, the devil doesn't really need co-conspirators." Actually, Robertson was saying that the Devil was co-conspiring with the Haitians to end French rule. So it is a conspiracy theory. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)Stonemason89 (talk) 20:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't believe that I actually have to sit here and argue that a pact with the devil is not a conspiracy theory... By the way, you should note that in Robertson's mind, the entity responsible for the quake is God, not Satan and his Haitian co-conspirators. Pichpich (talk) 03:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, Chavez did expressly state that the US used a "tectonic weapon" against Haiti. His statements went far beyond simply "criticism" of the US' motive in Haiti. Stonemason89 (talk) 22:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If Chavez actually did "expressly state" that the US used a tectonic weapon against Haiti, you must have a better reference than just that one TV clip. Where are they?  That is the only thing in your article that might be considered a conspiracy, and you have only one poor reference for it.  (Keep in mind that FOX news, for instance, makes up a good part of what they call the news.) Gandydancer (talk) 22:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. We are an encyclopedia, not a holding pen for whackjob conspiracy theories.   JBsupreme  ( talk ) 17:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you like to cite an actual guideline which is relevant to an AfD or should we file your "vote" also under WP:IDONTLIKEIT? __meco (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You may mentally file it wherever you please.  JBsupreme  ( talk ) 21:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete This article is a ragbag of various bizarre stories circulating around this event, as they do these days around any disaster. The individual parts are, in my opinion, either non-notable or barely so. Mikenorton (talk) 20:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. As an encyclopedia, we should report the facts, not judge their merit. The fact is that there are conspiracy theories about the earthquake.  As long as the article can remain NPOV, it's legitimate. (note: this comment was unsigned, but added by Me Three (talk))
 * As was noted above, most of the content is not actually about conspiracy theories, and what is left does not warrant an article. Perhaps you think we should rename this to Stuff about the 2010 Haiti earthquake that wasn't included in the main article? -- Pontificalibus (talk) 21:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. The value of the theories and the value of this article are two things. To record that there have been such theories, as an entry of an encyclopaedia, is the value of this article. If an encyclopaedia can record theories and allegations held by some medieval Europeans about the Black Death, why can it not have an entry recording theories and allegations held by some people nowadays about the 2010 Haiti earthquake? When people look back ten or twenty years later, I think they will find that this article deserves its existence, if it will be kept. Qrfqr (talk) 22:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to be a wp:indiscriminate collection of information for its own sake, especially from dubious conspiracy theory provenance. The superstitions about the Black Death are encyclopedic because or their historical and religious importance, not because they could be labeled "conspiration theories" ¨¨ victor  falk  00:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * To Qrfqr: are you referring to the articles Black Death in medieval culture and Consequences of the Black Death? The shifts described there are not about "theories and allegations by some medieval Europeans"! They are about the well-documented transformation of a whole society's organization and perception of religion. They are emphatically not concerned with an exhaustive record of all instances of superstitions about the Black Death but about their overall aspect and effects. Pichpich (talk) 00:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * To Pichpich: First, please read the "Persecutions" section of "Consequences of the Black Death". That the Jews poisoned the wells caused the Black Death is of course a conspiracy theory! But as you put it, it reflected some aspect of the medieval society. This is exactly what I want to say: The value of a conspiracy theory or an allegation and the value of THE EXISTENCE OF such conspiracy or allegation are two things. A conspiracy theory might be of no value and rejected as nonsense by most of the people. However, the value of its very existence is another story. I am not going to list all the theories and what we can know from it, but just one and some of its implications: the conspiracy of that some kind of non-conventional weapon of some country caused this earthquake. The value of its existence is, that people are aware of the dominant role of that country in that region, and some people are afraid of the resurgence of the imperialism (if it had ever disappeared); that people have angst toward the developing science and technology, which are out of the comprehensible range of the lay people, but they also facilitate, at least some aspects, of the daily life. People love it and hate it, need it but distrust it. It reflected how little the scientists know about earthquakes, and how less the lay people do. I am not going on analysing it, but I believe many things could be found out.
 * As for your second point, I am afraid that I can not agree with you. How do you know that there is no bit in the articles regarding the Black Death which is concerned with superstition, while all of them are about the overall aspect and effects? As I said, an entry can be about a conspiracy and what it reflects at the same time.
 * Besides, I think the whole debate also has something to do with what an encyclopaedia should be in our minds. Until now, a conventional encyclopaedia is not a place to publicate original research work. But how secondary should the information of an encyclopaedia be? Can people collect facts (such as "there has been such conspiracy theory that...") and do their own analysis with their own viewpoints and values, or should the readers accept the viewpoint and value of the encyclopaedists (eg. certain materials have been rejected by the encyclopaedists as worthless so that readers later have no chance to do their own judgement)? Something which seems worthless at this moment (because its context is well understood by contemporary people) might be valuable later on. Is wikipedia supposed to be an encyclopaedia which lives only HERE and NOW, or is it supposed to be an encyclopaedia beyond HERE and NOW? Well, everyone can have different opinion on it, but this might also be the underlying point that this debate is about. Qrfqr (talk) 12:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This isn't about the existence of an allegation versus the truth or merit of that allegation. It's about the importance that these allegations have on the general perception of events and the consequences of that perception. The accusations against Jews after the plague were extremely pervasive and the resulting antisemitism led to many massacres. Pat Robertson said all kinds of dumb things about 9/11 but you won't find it mentionned in 9/11 conspiracy theories because it was never taken seriously enough to shape the public discourse on 9/11. You will however find it mentionned in the article on Robertson because it helped cement his reputation as an increasingly senile lunatic. Wikipedia (or any encyclopedia for that matter) is not a repository for anything and everything that's been said about a topic. To quote from the FRINGE guideline: "Wikipedia is not a forum for presenting new ideas, for countering any systemic bias in institutions such as academia, or for otherwise promoting ideas which have failed to merit attention elsewhere." So yes, we do discriminate and leave aside the background noise. We don't let readers simply make up their own judgement because we don't simply list fringe views: we also explain and document their rejection by mainstream science. And we do organize content so that controversies, conspiracies or allegations are presented in contexts where they have had an impact. Discussing HAARP in the context of the Haiti earthquake is not the same as discussing the Haiti earthquake in the context of HAARP. Note also that nobody here has seriously argued that concerns about imperialism have to disappear. They absolutely should be discussed but not in an article where they are conflated with paranoid theories that are widely portrayed as complete nonsense. Not that I'm a big Ron Paul fan but it's misleading to summarize this nuanced statement by "believes that the resolution would lead to an "open-ended US military occupation of Haiti"" and to include it in a section titled "Other countries are taking advantage of the earthquake". Pichpich (talk) 14:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not very convincing to categorize the Jews-poisoned-the-wells as "very pervasive" and what Pat Robertson said as "dumb things" and "never taken seriously enough" without first defining what is "being significant", what is "being pervasive", and then giving evidence to categorize them. Sometimes the supporters of Pat Robertson just remain silent, but it does not mean that his words are not influential just because one can not hear his supporters' voice.
 * As for what an encyclopaedia should be, it is a convention that an encyclopaedia is not a collection of daily newspapers. That does not mean the encyclopaedia should not have what has been written in newspapers. As for the criteria for an event to be written in encyclopaedia, yes, the importance is a good one, but what is "being important" is not well defined and, as I have said in my previous reply, what seems trivial now may be important in the future.
 * About how secondary the information of Wikipedia should be, there are different opinions. I think it is a thing which remains to be discussed, so we might need more opinions of other users. Thank you for having let me know your viewpoint, and I respect it. Qrfqr (talk) 02:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * An allegation can be both dumb and pervasive. Dumbness of course is very subjective. Pervasiveness is not and can be established to a certain extent. If future evidence eventually shows that the Devil-pact theory did end up shaping a lot of people's view on the quake, it will still be time to write about it. Right now, all we have is Robertson saying something that had people laughing or rolling their eyes for 24h. That's news, not encyclopedic content. (And not to belabour the point but it's news that doesn't even qualify as a conspiracy theory.) Pichpich (talk) 03:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So it is possible that the contents of this article may earn its place in an encyclopaedia, it's just that not everyone think it does RIGHT NOW. This is what I have asked previously, i.e., should wikipedia be an encyclopaedia of HERE and NOW, or should it be an encyclopaedia beyond HERE and NOW? I have my own opinion, but I think it's discussable. Another question is that, will an event "become important", or has it always been important, and it's just that people find its importance at some moment? It is a convention that an encyclopaedia is not a place to publicate original research, but is it a convention that an encyclopaedia should not contain information providing insights beyond its time, even if no original research is involved? This is to be discussed. If the public opinion is that wikipedia should be an encyclopaedia of HERE and NOW, I will respect it. Qrfqr (talk) 06:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. The folks in the discussion so far have argued persuasively (on all sides). I am voting "weak keep" because information about conspiracy theories is possibly useful notable no matter how bizarre they are, and the available sources get us beyond some of the issues with WP:FRINGE for the Wikipedians involved with the article. However, we must make sure that the article gives the impression of merely reporting someone else's conspiracy theories and why they could be considered notable. Avoid language that gives any impression of actually promoting such quackery. D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 23:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions ¨¨ victor  falk  00:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My bad. I meant "notable" rather than "useful." My vote remains the same but I would not be too upset if this weird article is deleted. D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 17:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete If edited correctly, there is nothing left of this article. As many editors above have pointed out, neither satanic intervention nor the US taking geopolitical advantage of the situation meet the definition of a conspiracy theory (why is there no link to this in the article)? That leaves two possible ones, HAARP and israeli organs, both of which could be much better covered in High_Frequency_Active_Auroral_Research_Program and Organ_donation_in_Israel. Which in my opinion is doubtful they should, since the first one is based upon a lone report from a Venezuelan tv station and the second from propaganda sources like presstv.ir; this is not enough. ¨¨ victor  falk  00:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The definition of a conspiracy theory is somewhat fluid; as I pointed out before, a strong argument be made that Robertson's remarks are a conspiracy theory because he was accusing the Haitian people of having (historically) conspired with the Devil in order to overthrow the French. Likewise, the "geopolitical advantage" claims made by Castro et al., can be considered a conspiracy theory because the USA is currently insisting that it is not occupying Haiti. This means that someone who claims that the USA is occupying Haiti is accusing the government of secretly (conspiratorially) doing so, since the USA is obviously not doing so openly. Accusing the government of secretly doing something nefarious, without evidence to back it up, certainly qualifies as a conspiracy theory. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fluidity can only go so far. You won't find any mention of the "God's wrath" theory in 9/11 conspiracy theories and calling Robertson's theory a conspiracy theory is stretching the definition by a couple of miles. The criticism of American imperialism is not a conspiracy theory: it's not about a covert plan to overtake Haiti but about the concern that the US presence is a de facto military occupation. Whatever the merits of these concerns, they can and probably should lead to an article that doesn't conflate it with the HAARP nonsense or, worse yet, Robertson's deep insight. Pichpich (talk) 03:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, there now is a link to conspiracy theory in the lede of the article. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep as meeting WP:FRINGE due to the sheer number of sources over an exended time (and thus not subject to WP:ONEEVENT) that prove notability. This is not one conspiracy theory, but several, much like the birther movement.  There is nothing wrong with this article that can't be fixed with normal editing.  Like many articles about concepts, one event or statement is notable, but in toto becomes notable. Bearian (talk) 01:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have two more arguments: (1) the article is still being improved, and may be kept in a few days as it shows itself (per WP:HEY), and (2) as I added to the lede, "Like the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, these are not a single set of coherent ideas, but an inchoate set of urban legends and statements, often by notable individuals and documented by various sources." Bearian (talk) 01:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the reference to the birther conspiracies iis really helpful. To the non-American public, this is meaningless and the birther conspiracies actually involve conspirators for the cover-up. Note also the ridiculous sentence "Some theories, more accurately allegations for which no evidence has been advanced, claim that the earthquake was the result of divine judgment upon Haiti." Gee, who would have guessed that no evidence of divine judgment is scarce... Pichpich (talk) 03:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "no evidence of divine judgment is scarce..."? I'm pretty sure that's not what you meant to say...Stonemason89 (talk) 03:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Self-described as "an inchoate set of urban legends and statements" -- in English, that means "a lot of nonsense." It doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Warrah (talk) 01:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Once again, just because it is "nonsense" does not preclude it from appearing in Wikipedia. The people making these claims are very notable hand as a result, the claims are too, regardless of whether or not they are "nonsense". I might add that just deleting the Wikipedia article on a conspiracy theory does not and will not make the theory go away. The bottom line is that these theories exist and that a lot of high-profile people (including Chavez) believe them. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete—"a lot of nonsense" (per User:Warrah) seems like a fair assessment to me. The article is a collection of loosely-associated topics that doesn't belong on Wikipedia. There are conspiracy theories about everything which are covered in the media, and we don't need an article for conspiracy theories related to each event. Some theories deserve articles, but only when they entered serious public debate and have been covered in numerous mainstream sources, which is not the case here. —Ynhockey (Talk) 01:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hugo Chavez may not be "mainstream" from your or my perspective, but he is a head of state, which means he is definitely notable. Since Morales, Castro, and the Iranian state media have been echoing him, that only strengthens the case for notability. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's highly misleading. As I noted, it is true that Chavez, Morales, Castro and a number of observers are questioning the massive role being played by the US armed forces. There's plenty of material to write a sound article on the subject but it's not a conspiracy theory. Your argument is that Chavez hinted at the HAARP conspiracy. Fair enough but Morales, Castro and the Iranian state media are not echoing that specific bit of lunacy. Pichpich (talk) 03:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:SYNTH. Well-sourced paragraphs about unrelated conspiracy theories don't make an encyclopedia article. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Agreeing with reasons provided by Qrfqr and Meco. --LLTimes (talk) 05:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep especially because of the US occupation allegations. Remove organ theft dangerous fringe rubbish. -- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 12:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * But then you're left with an article that has nothing to do with conspiracy theories. Pichpich (talk) 14:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That why I've suggested possibly renaming this article Alternative views of the 2010 Haiti earthquake, which is a broader, more inclusive term than conspiracy theories. See below. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've decided to change my vote to reflect that. Stonemason89 (talk) 03:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * or 2010 Haiti earthquake controversies-- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 14:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete.
 * First of all this article gives WP:UNDUE weight to rumours, theories that always exist in small scale to all events.
 * The reason the section "The earthquake was not a natural disaster" should not exist is covered WP:FRINGE.
 * The section "Other countries are taking advantage of the earthquake" is not a conspiracy theory is a point of view in the politics arena. Every country, every political party is judging events and moves from other countries or parties. This section would be better formed as "Controversy on...". Still a phrase o Fidel Castro doesn't completely explain Cuba's point of view on the US presence in Haiti and this is more important than a phrase in an article. Again check WP:WEIGHT. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as a hodgepodge of only vaguely related topics. Trying to unite foreign accusations of US intent to occupy Haiti, Mr. Robinson's horrific statements with regards to Satan, strange allegations of organ harvesting and paranoid delusions about earthquake making machines into a single topic under the banner of "Consipracy Theories" is bordering on WP:SYNTH.  In teality all this "article" is, is a dumping grounds for minutiae that won't stick in the 2010 Haiti earthquake.  If their inclusion in the main article is unacceptable, their retention in this shady little WP:COATRACK is unacceptable as well. Shereth 14:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per Shereth - nicely and succinctly put. ukexpat (talk) 16:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep There is alot of talk about this Conspiracy, it has received national news coverage, and there are links to readings on HAARPs induction magnetomter on those days alone.--Indlebe (talk) 17:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Question: Er, which one? The article mentions 3, or 4 if you include Robertson's codswallop... – ukexpat (talk) 17:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: there seem to be two arguments for deleting this article, essentially (1) it is about nonsense and (2) some of the things discussed aren't conspiracies (a pact with the devil isn't a conspiracy - yes it is - well, while there is a conspiracy, the earthquake is putatively from God alone hence not a conspiracy so there - how many angels can dance on the point of a pin?). (2) is just to do with the article name and maybe should be a call for an all-encompassing name. I would say "crackpot notions about ...", others will surely want something a bit less forthright. Splitting the article should be avoided. So argument (2) for deletion should be rejected; it could be changed to a discussion about renaming. Argument (1) has substance and merits a vote. I take the view that these arguments, nutty though they may be, are part of things as they are. If I were reading about this from a faraway country unaware of the tensions in this part of the world I would want to know about things discussed here. Future historians might find this a valuable resource. Remember that rubbish tips tell us far more about the day-to-day life of long-gone civilisations than monuments and official documents. "How did the Global Civilisation of 1900-2048 react to natural catastrophes? Discuss." Pol098 (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How about "Alternative views of the 2010 Haiti earthquake"? That would dovetail nicely with WP: WikiProject Alternative Views, which deals with such topics. "Non-mainstream views" would be another (similarly NPOV) phrase that could be used. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have decided to change my vote to Move. Stonemason89 (talk) 03:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep It isn't taking anything away from Wikipedia, nor does it appear to violate any guidelines. If it isn't written in the correct style, then it can be reworded, and if the content isn't appropriate at the moment it would be better for someone familiar with the topic to add to it, rather than delete it. ResPublicae (talk) 01:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: My vote is still keep for the time being . However, I would also like to suggest a possible compromise; namely, merging this article into List of conspiracy theories. If enough people are willing to consider this idea, I might consider changing my own vote as well. How does that idea sound? Stonemason89 (talk) 01:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I just realized that if we name this article Alternative views of the 2010 Haiti earthquake, we will not only resolve the controversy over whether the Robertson (and Chavez) comments are "really" a conspiracy theory or not, but we will ALSO be able to include Danny Glover's claims that manmade global warming caused the quake. Those claims are definitely wacky (global warming causes a lot of things, but certainly not earthquakes but usually not earthquakes!), but not a "conspiracy theory". So I've decided to change my vote to Move. Stonemason89 (talk) 03:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The advantage of the Alternative views of the 2010 Haiti earthquake title is that it stresses the true nature of the article: a "hodgepodge of only vaguely related topics" as Shereth nicely put it. The article is built from bits and pieces which have been rejected as irrelevant from the core article on the quake and filing them all under "conspiracy theory" is artificial. In particular, criticism of the American military presence doesn't deserve to be conflated with Pat Robertson's Faustian obsessions. Although the most strident protest came from leaders who just love opportunities to rant against the US, it's still a genuine geopolitical issue. It could be (and deserves to be) addressed in the article on Operation Unified Response. Pichpich (talk) 00:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A comment which probably isn't related to the Haiti earthquake claims: I haven't read Glover's opinions about global warning and this earthquake, so can't comment specifically (on the face of it they sound unlikely). However to say, as said above that "global warming ... certainly [doesn't cause] earthquakes!" isn't necessarily true in all cases. Specifically, there have been thoroughly respectable opinions that in the longer term the melting of huge volumes of ice (we're speaking of kilometers of thickness) will significantly change local tensions within the earth's crust and is likely to cause earthquakes. Pol098 (talk) 15:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're probably right....my bad. I learn something new every day! Stonemason89 (talk) 03:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete As pointed out by the arguments above, this article includes a pile of unrelated information.   Burningview    ✉  01:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Technical Question: Does the AFD statistics parser only count Delete and Keep votes, or can it tabulate other types of votes too (move, merge, transwiki, etc.)? Because after I changed my vote from Keep to Move, I expected the statistics page to reflect that; instead, it dropped my vote from the vote count altogether! Stonemason89 (talk) 03:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Its just a rough headcount, I'm not sure why we even have that built into the template, to be honest.  JBsupreme  ( talk ) 04:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Additional evidence for the subject's notability has just surfaced yesterday; the San Francisco Bay View, a nationally known hard-left newspaper, has thrown its hat in the ring with two of its columnists advancing theories about HAARP, oil, white supremacy, etc. See . Stonemason89 (talk) 14:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: More and more people just keep jumping on the conspiracy theory bandwagon; abiogenic oil proponent F. William Engdahl just claimed that the real reason the US is in Haiti is because of oil; this is a similar claim to the one made by Alex Jones. I don't think anybody would deny that that claim is, indeed, a bona fide conspiracy theory. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete The four major topics, that the US or God's punishment caused the earthquake, concerns about US military presence in Haiti, and organ harvesting are really diverse topics, a LOT moreso than the various theories about Obama's birth. They do not comprise an article. Only concerns about the US military by four national leaders is perhaps worth inclusion in one of the main earthquake articles. The others are so far one-off comments or not extensively referenced by major third-party organizations to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. Galatee (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Two words in your last sentence caught my eye: "so far". Do you think that other people or organizations will continue to promote these theories in the future? That seems likely to me, given that the earthquake was such a recent event. Already, the San Francisco Bay View has injected itself into the conspiracy-fest with an article that was published after this AFD started. My point is, why delete the article now and then be forced to recreate it again later (since you can bet that the number of people making such claims will only get larger)? Stonemason89 (talk) 21:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, if your primary objection to this article is the fact that it contains "diverse topics", perhaps you should support merging this article into List of conspiracy theories instead, given that List of conspiracy theories is itself a collection of diverse topics? Stonemason89 (talk) 22:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Per reasons above, this article is nonsense. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "this article is nonsense"? That's not a very substantive argument... Stonemason89 (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Reasons above, and the fact that there's conspiracy theories over every new earthquake. This is no different. If it must be added, put it in List of conspiracy theories.Planetary (talk) 05:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "there's conspiracy theories over every new earthquake..."? That's a statement I doubt; I don't remember any other earthquake generating the same kind of attention from conspiracy theorists that this one has received. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep but rename: "conspiracy theory" has a negative connotation, and some of the things discussed in the article aren't really conspiracy theories&mdash;declaring an event to be some sort of divine judgment is quite different from attempting to explain it as the result of a human conspiracy. "Conspiracy" necessarily involves multiple actors, and as I understand it God is believed to work alone. Something like "alternative explanations" or "non-natural explanations" might be more workable. Everyking (talk) 06:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think those suggestions are valuable and should be considered once the article passes the AfD. __meco (talk) 13:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You might want to look at some of my ideas above; my personal suggestion was "Alternative views of the 2010 Haiti earthquake", since it dovetails nicely with WP: WikiProject Alternative Views and is more inclusive, allowing us to add other material such as Danny Glover's recent claims about global warming causing the earthquake. Stonemason89 (talk) 16:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The article itself is not nonsense, it just documents a bunch of well-referenced nonsense. Make sure "conspiracy theories" is retained in the title so that most visitors can easily realize this. Grey Wyvern ⚒  16:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - a very well written and researched article... most of the delete votes seem to be from people who are personally offended by any mention of other people's anti-Israeli or anti-American views (no matter how ridiculous they are) and wish to suppress them from being broadcast. Or they just don't like conspiracy theories. WP:IDONTLIKEIT Rapido (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You should take the time to re-read the "delete" votes before making such sweeping generalizations... Pichpich (talk) 18:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * He didn't say all the delete votes were based on IDONTLIKEIT, he just said many/most of them were. Stonemason89 (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * However, there is actually nothing whatsoever to indicate that any of the delete votes are from people who are "personally offended by" and "wish to supress" other people's anti-Israeli or anti-American views. -- Pontificalibus (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Really? Read Modernist and Resolute's comments again...to me it's pretty obvious that they were offended by the views of the conspiracy theorists mentioned in the article. Stonemason89 (talk) 00:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And to be clear he didn't say "many/most", he said "most" and this flies in the face of evidence. I'm also puzzled by Rapido's claim that the article is "well-written"... Pontificalibus and others have ridded the article of its most grotesque incoherences but it's still obvious that the article is a collage. Pichpich (talk) 23:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Err, umm, no Stonemason. S/he said "most", not many/most. Which quite well represents what is going on in this article: Taking a few facts, and very few at that, and manipulating and massaging them into something that you want them to say rather than what they actually do say. I am reading the same posts that you are reading, and I see no flag-waving-blind-patriotism here. Certainly not in my case! If I had my way we would create a new national monument with Howard Zinn, Mark Twain, Kurt Vonnegut, and...it would be nice to have some African American up there and I'm sure they're out there, but fat chance of finding one, all things considered... And we'd finish the Chief Crazy Horse monument up ASAP, as well. OK, sorry about the soap box, but it past 5 o'clock here and I am slightly PWD, and I'm sure I'll regret it! Gandydancer (talk) 01:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't take it personally, I wasn't referring to your comments at all. I'm not saying I agree with Rapido completely or mostly; I'm just trying to offer up a possible explanation for why he/she said what he/she said. Stonemason89 (talk) 03:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I know you were not referring to me personally. But that said, your "possible explanation" is, I repeat, a fine example of this article you want to include in wikipedia: Pulling a wide variety of information together and tweaking it this way and that to suit your preconceived thinking.  Which is OK for you, I guess, but not for wikipedia. Gandydancer (talk) 04:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: This page is certainly getting a lot of attention; look at the page views history, it's getting nearly 2,000 views a day. Some of that may be due to the AFD, but most of it probably isn't. Of course, popularity in itself is not a reason to vote keep; I'm just pointing out the statistics. Stonemason89 (talk) 03:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sigh... If you really think the stats are meaningless and irrelevant to the decision at hand, why are you introducing them in the debate? Pichpich (talk) 05:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * When a page is linked prominently from one of the most viewed pages on the wiki, this should be unsurprising.- Running On Brains (talk) 09:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete, delete, delete (yes, my !vote counts thrice) per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:FRINGE, and just a bad idea in general. In honesty, I expect that this article (Conspiracy theories about BLANK) to be written about every major event in the forseeable future, because in this day and age, crackpots always get their day in the limelight (thank you very much, "news" networks). This works for events like 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina only because it is now well after the fact, and whole books have been written on the subjects. I still would rather see most of them go, but when something is well-discussed among many people and the subject of news articles, books, TV documentaries, and even movies, it deserves mention. When our best sources are tabloids and state-run news, we need to seriously think whether or not this is advancing Wikipedia's aim of furthering mankind's knowledge. Spoiler alert: it is not.
 * And if you don't like those reasons, I think User:Shereth's hold a great deal of water as well.- Running On Brains (talk) 09:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Shereth. Also, while throwing up some wild-eyed provocative nonsense may cause a little burst of coverage in news media, but unless it is lasting, we have a WP:NOT case. All the "theories" in the article are extremely WP:FRINGE-y. Sjakkalle (Check!)  12:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Wikipedia should document such social reactions.  This article led me to watch a clip of the White House Press Secretary calling Pat Robertson's comments "utterly stupid", which by itself more than justifies my Obama vote.  I do object to the name - I think "conspiracy theory" is a badly overused term that is often misapplied, e.g. Satan killing tens of thousands of Haitians via earthquake for something in 1791 is not a "conspiracy theory" (it's one guy!) but just utterly stupid.  I would propose 2010 Haiti earthquake mythology.  That said, the bad title is irrelevant to whether the article is notable, and it is clearly notable. Wnt (talk) 18:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The contents might be notable, but each item would fit better in different exisiting articles. It's having an article of this title we are debating here. -- Pontificalibus (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not quite sure what "article is notable" means. The point is that what you call "social reactions" are not the topic of the article. The meaningful, substantive and most common of these are addressed in the main article on the quake. What we have here is the background noise and the overflow: stuff that's too marginal to include in the quake article, stuff like the criticism of the US military presence which is in limbo because we're not sure where it should go, stuff like Robertson's comment which is meaningful in the context of the Pat Robertson article but of negligible interest in our coverage of the quake. Wikipedia has no obligation to report on anything that appeared on some nutjob's blog and it should differentiate between the substantive and the anecdotal. The comparison with, say, the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories is deeply flawed. The birther theories had an important impact on American politics, they got tremendous and sustained coverage, a significant number of Americans came to believe in them, academics studied their meaning and their roots, etc. In contrast, what do we have here? Robertson's comment which was the subject of news for 24 hours and was laughed out of existence, an organ harvesting accusation which has little to do with Haiti and is just the continuation of the 2009 Aftonbladet Israel controversy, the HAARP theory which again is not specific to this earthquake (and not even specific to earthquakes!), a debunked controversy about Chavez giving credence to the HAARP nonsense, a legit debate on American military presence which has nothing to do with conspiracies, mythology or alternate views. I rest my case... Pichpich (talk) 20:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "an organ harvesting accusation which has little to do with Haiti and is just the continuation of the 2009 Aftonbladet Israel controversy..." How, exactly, does it have "little to do with Haiti"; the organ harvesting was alleged to have taken place in Haiti. Also, the Aftonbladet-Israel controversy was about the Palestinian territories, not Haiti. Superficially similar, yes, but not enough to make the former a "continuation" of the latter. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * These rumours have circulated for years (see Organ donation in Israel and Abu Kabir Forensic Institute) and they're part of a threaded history that is currently centred around Haiti because that's the last we've heard of the IDF. The claim is rooted in the 90s (and actually acknowledged as more or less correct) but now it just follows the IDF wherever it goes: you'll have no trouble finding Iranian propaganda that extends the accusation to the 2006 Lebanon War, the Gaza War, the 2004 Israel–Gaza conflict. Actually, just for the sake of epic lulz, I'd like to see you try to make a case at Talk:Israel Defense Forces that this needs to be added to the IDF article or, if that doesn't work, that we need an article on Israel Defense Forces conspiracy theories. Pichpich (talk) 03:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Extra note. If you're not convinced that the claim about the IDF in Haiti is a direct continuation of the earlier accusations, go and listen to (or read the transcript of) that "Theautries West of Seattle" clown. He doesn't actually say explicitly "the IDF is stealing organs in Haiti". He says "the IDF has participated, in the past, in stealing organ transplants of Palestinians and others. So. There is little monitoring in such a tragedy as this so the Haitian people must watch out for their citizens." Unless I'm missing a follow-up, the accusation about the IDF in Haiti is implicit and it is unmistakably a direct continuation about the earlier controversies. Pichpich (talk) 03:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * On further consideration, I think that the main problem here is that the focus of the article is too narrow. There is nothing to merge the four topics into, because there is no article Political reactions to the 2010 Haiti earthquake.  (It could be started as a section in the main earthquake article, but I suspect a hostile reception, and the amount of information would soon outgrow the space provided there)
 * For example, the Venezuelan media did not just allege a HAARP conspiracy - they alleged that the U.S. was planning to send Haitian migrants to Guantanamo Bay (now confirmed by Fox News) and that the U.S. was using the earthquake to launch a military occupation (now formally alleged by the head of UNASUR). If this article is deleted, I think I should start a new article under the right name and with the more relevant political controversies highlighted first, with the intent of working in all the deleted material (with less weight than the important stuff).  But it would be better just to move it directly and build it up. Wnt (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Having read the ViVe article (now ref'd in the article) it is apparent they did not even allege a HAARP conspiracy, they just reported on the alledged existence of a Russian report that they said supposedly claimed the earthquake could possibly have been caused by HAARP. Now that is not a political reaction. Neither is Pat Robertson's claim. The "US military occupation of Haiti" might be split of to somewhere else, but a simple rename is not appropriate unless we first remove items that aren't a politcal reaction or don't have significant coverage in reliable sources.-- Pontificalibus (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment It seems the contents of this page could easily be split up. The Pat Robertson controversy belongs on his page, the HAARP bit is already mentioend on HAARP's page, and the stuff the foreign leaders are saying should be on their pages in their controversy sections. Planetary (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Then you can vote merge if you wish. Not all AFD votes have to follow the keep/delete dichotomy; there are grey areas in between, one of which is merge. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In the context of AfD, "merge" requires something close to a single merge target. The Pat Robertson and HAARP conspiracies are already part of their respective articles. Pichpich (talk) 14:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Most of the cited, notable statements in the article (i.e. from country leaders) are to do with America exploiting the aftermath of the earthquake. Whilst there is absolutely no proof and in my opinion, they are simply ramblings of crazed people, if it needs to be kept it certainly has no place in this article as it is not a conspiracy theory about the actual earthquake itself. It is certainly a misleading name and frankly I am appalled and embarrassed such a wishy-washy unencyclopedic article about a major catastrophe exists on Wikipedia. Feudonym (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom. It's ridiculous there is an article on this in Wikipedia; I don't think it helps Wikipedia's credibility by giving absurd claims like this not substantiated by any evidence its own article. Wikipediarul e s 2221  23:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Nomination gives no valid reason for deletion. Conspiracy theories are perfectly valid encyclopedia subjects.  Many of the delete !votes seem to be based on the false assumption that this article reports these theories as being correct, when it reports them as existing.  A variety of notable people have held these views and the views are sourced, si it's worth having an article on. Edward321 (talk) 00:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What?!? I understand that 62kb is a lot to read but do your homework before writing "Many of the delete !votes seem to be based on the false assumption that this article reports these theories as being correct, when it reports them as existing." Pichpich (talk) 03:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Some of the comments are vague enough to be interpreted that way (for example, Wikipediarules2221's or Knowledgekid87's comments). But there's no proof that they actually meant (or didn't mean) that. That's one of the problems with vague comments, as you never know what the person was actually thinking when they wrote it. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment the US "military occupation" section should really be in the Operation Unified Response as a criticism section... 70.29.210.242 (talk) 07:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.