Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/False flag

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. ugen 64 04:22, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

False flag

Personal essay. If the personal essay were removed, it would be at best a dicdef. While an encyclopedia article could conceivably be written on this topic, this isn't it, and it is probably better to delete it and let someone else start over from scratch one day.

Delete. --BM 16:13, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Oppose It is an important topic. It should remain as a starting point. It's a lazy stunt to simply quickly read it and vote for its rejection. What you should do instead is to improve it. That would be the responsible thing to do. If you don't want Wikipedia to contain explanations of substantive issues, then say so. If you are willing to spend any of your time improving on the explanation of false flag then do that. At least point out the factual errors, or provide a logical refutation of the statements I made. - Bill Cannon

User's second edit; first was to create the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:55, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. - Should be re-writen and added a covert operations
Keep, has obvious potential for expansion. I should point out to Bill Cannon that it's not wikipedia's job to refute things, it's your job to prove someone else said them, otherwise they count as original research Kappa 19:45, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Comment. I went ahead and cleaned it up, somewhat undermining my own nomination. Look in the history for the original personal essay. It is now basically just a dicdef, and still should be deleted. --BM 20:18, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, dictionary definition. Megan1967 04:59, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep and Espand. I have expanded this so that it is a stub. I have added the Lavon Affair as an example of a false flag operation and added the derivation from the militay False colors. Capitalistroadster 09:37, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep and redirect False colors here. The countries that drafted the Geneva conventions thought false flag operations important enough to include a provision allowing them. Gazpacho 11:29, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge the content with that of false colors, under one title or the other. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:29, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep but Don't Merge With regard to keep; in our era there are governments with governments with secret budgets of $billions annually. There is absolutely no way a person can grasp the truth of events in our era without an acknowledgement and understanding of the role played by false flag events. False Flag is the only coathook in the closet upon which we can hang the strange, almost mystical coat that, until now, nobody admits to owning or wearing. With regard to Don't Merge; False Colors is an operation that only a military unit can execute but False Flag is an operation that any group of people can carry out. Mark Hardy

User's first edit. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:51, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep. False Flag is an extraordinarily relevant concept in modern political, military and economic reality. I see no justification entered thus far for deleting the explanation of this concept within Wikipedia. GeneMosher

User's fifth edit. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:53, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep Certainly notable in principle; bad idea, and indeed rather un-wiki, to delete on the basis of current content. (Which yes, could certainly do with being expanded.) Alai 04:48, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep - I want references to the term being in use - David Gerard 10:33, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep and Expand Mark Hardy is absolutely correct. An understanding of the real functioning of the 'National Security State' is only possible if the workings of the intelligence services are brought to light. The term 'False Flag' has gained new currency following the september 11 attacks and has recently been employed in several public addresses regarding the War on Terror's enabling event. See Ralph Schoenman's testimony to the 9/11 Inquiry Conference: http://sandiego.indymedia.org/en/2004/04/103863.shtml A good, if somewhat slanted, overview of these kinds of operations can be found here: http://whatreallyhappened.com/ARTICLE5/ User:Maiasta 0:43, 12 Mar 2005

User's first edit. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:00, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Dicdef, and even then not being used correctly, based on recent insertions. Clearly a vehicle for political agendists, no more; sockpuppet support confirms this. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:47, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have watched you, Jayjg, in various topics, using your position as administrator, intervening in various topics all over the place with what looks very much like censorship to me. I can see that many people have attempted to refine, expand and clarify the information in Wikipedia about topics such as apartheid, racism, even the USS Liberty incident, etc., and here, false flags but that you are always there to ensure that no negative references to anyone Jewish or anything Israeli is ever allowed to stay. At least here in the area where we are free to discuss the validity of the phenomenon of false flags you have no justification for removing what I have to say about you. I say again, that the phenomenon of false flag operations is utterly relevant to understanding events in the contemporary world, and an explanation of it, with examples, is essential here in Wikipedia, in spite of your effort here to quash the discussion by declaring as invalid the very inclusion of the topic in Wikipedia itself. I do not appreciate what you are doing here, clear as it is to me, and disgusting as it is to me. I don't like censorship and I don't like how you achieve it here in Wikipedia in your own small way. The strength of the arguments made here in support of not deleting this page is evidence enough for keeping this page ini Wikipedia. You are the one who has a political agenda here, not me. Shame on you. And I will document your behavior, to reveal you as the de facto censor that you are. If it looks like I'm a sockpuppet because I forgot to log on for one of my comments then shame on you again for jumping on that and adding an interpretation to that which you know darn well is NOT an intentional effort to introduce the sockpuppet effect here. Bill Cannon 14:43, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and I've watched you "Bill", and the various other sockpuppets you are using here (the ones you call "many other people"), and seen your absurdly POV "contributions" to Wikipedia. In any event, that's not relevant to this Vote for Deletion, which was not initiated by me. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:28, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You should be upset, and you should be concerned, because I will deliver, and I will expose your tactics and your intent. You clearly don't have time to contribute to Wikipedia except by censoring, for you surely don't add facts or material that can inform others in all your visits here, but instead use your position to demean others, to attempt to muffle their contributions when it threatens your work to keep Wikipedia from being a source of knowledge that actually explains things as they are. The importance of a thorough explanation of the false flag phenomenon in today's world is clear from the way that it threatens the role you have settled into here and no amount of "lable throwing" or "name calling" at my on your part adds any rational support to any argument supporting deletion of this topic. Instead, it provides evidence that this topic IS important, and that its deletion will weaken Wikipedia as an uncensored source of facts and information about the world we live in. I expected an ad hominem attack; it reveals the bankruptcy of your position and your fearful desperation that someone would see through it so readily. Your ad hominem attack is as irrelevant here to the discussion as any specious comments can be and I reject its appropriateness. I challenge you to lay out any argument for deletion rationally, if you can. Challenge the ideas, not the people who present them. That's the standard here for Wikipedia and its "administrators" if Wikikpedia and its "administrators" are what they pretend to be.

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.