Talk:False flag/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Votes for deletion

This page was recently nominated for deletion, and the consensus decision was to keep it. The deletion debate is archived here. ugen64 04:21, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sources and NPOV

Clean up rqd. 172.213.180.69 23:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC) With so little as a comment. Done. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• We probably do need to work on providing more published sources for this article, though. I will try to do my part when I get some time. --Satori Son 13:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

No Flag?

How many other situations are not to be considered False flag operatons? The Uss Liberty used UNMARKED planes and boats as the victims have stated AND they Jammed American Radio frequencies so as to limit the calls for help until the ingenious radio operator found a workaround. If not displaying proper insignia; is not the absense of insignia FALSE and or deceptive? Does that make it a pirate or private operation and not a False Flag? The ploy was apparently ment to be blamed on the egyptians although the official story is "accident" (the israeli government paid some compensations-in a round about way, we did by sending the aid dollars and loan forgiveness so it was a wash) but accident sure bothers me if american frequencies were jammed and the attack was in stages not just one isolated incident like oops I push the missle button before I got close enuff to see the bow numbers sorry?.

A conspiracy to encourage a real incident or a conspiracy to further an agenda by using an opportune incident are false flag if the intent is to make another party look like the agressor. Major examples of these should be given a paragraph. Pearl Harbour would be a good example of the first and the Reichstag fire an example of the second. Wayne 03:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Reichstag Fire should definitely be listed. WP:Be bold! Tazmaniacs

references to US history and current events

All references to false flag ops by the US or UK were deleted from the original version of this article. I have restored and amplified this coverage in a new section, Historical and contemporary parallels, and given false flag ops a place in the overall categories of war provocation and subversion; so to place them in context, i have included examples of similar incidents which are not strictly false flag ops per se. Please do not delete or cut this section without submitting changes for consensus, in order to avoid an edit war. Thank you. JPLeonard 18:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

JPLeonard, stop putting false "facts" in about the Ike, you are simply trying to color the article to support your predetermined conclusion. She was active during the six years prior to her RCOH, contrary to what you wrote (which can be easily determined), and her RCOH took four years, not six, and was a scheduled part of her lifespan (USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70) is currently in for her overhaul and will be out of service until early 2009). Further, the fact that she's the second-oldest Nimitz carrier is irrelevant as she is 29 years into a scheduled 55-year lifespan and in very good condition having just completed a complex overhaul in the most sophisticated and advanced shipyard on the planet. Sheesh. Iceberg3k 00:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The entire history and current events section needs a serious rewrite, it reads like an awful ramble and isn't very convincing. Particularly making numerous contentious claims and then skipping past them without even a token attempt at backing them up. Iceberg3k 01:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I've cut back the text about the Ike to the statement that it's the 2nd oldest Nimitz class carrier. That fact comes from its own wiki page. The overhaul is not that notable (and that digression is starting to ramble!) Whether it being off the road and getting an overhaul speaks for one or the other side of the argument is moot. The "sidelined for six years" comes from the two source references you deleted, the Hampton Roads paper and the website of the ship itself, last line on the page. Sidelined does not seem to mean completely immobilized.
Whether this article is convincing or not might be in the eye and predisposition or belief set of the reader. Anyway, it's a subjective notion. You say it's a ramble; but I'm just hitting headline high points, famous examples. It's not the place to write a detailed revisionist history of the world here.
I've added citations where requested so you know i'm not making anything up.JPLeonard 01:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Respectfully, you have not provided citations for all of the information you have re-added. I will be going through the article and deleting any and all information that is unsourced. The requirements of WP:VERIFY are stringent and non-negotiable. If, as you say, you are not "making anything up", then it should not be a problem to cite your sources so that other editors may properly evaluate them. --Satori Son 01:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is the key quote from the source about Kitson: [1]
"Col. Frank Kitson, in his 1960 book Gangs and Countergangs, revealed that the British were leading large-scale Mau Mau units, and that many (if not all) Mau Mau units were synthetically created by the colonial authorities. Through orchestrating violence between their "gangs" and "countergangs," the British ensured that only native slaughter, and not revolution, would result."
Unfortunately, the book seems to be very rare.
But I HAVE added sources for all three of those passages. Which sources are you not satisfied with? The status of the guideline on reliable sources is disputed, by the way.
I have tried to adopt a NPOV here and say that certain people claim certain things. The standard cannot be that I have to prove these things. If we write a Wiki article about Jesus, we do not have to prove he is the Son of God. But we can still note that some people do believe that. JPLeonard 05:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Satori, I have to reiterate my opening comment above,
Please do not delete or cut this section without submitting changes for consensus, in order to avoid an edit war. Thank you.
I will try and source each statement. It will improve the article. But please don't go deleting a lot of material on your own because you don't think my sources are sources, OK? JPLeonard 06:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You can't call for discussions before edits just because you personally want the article to represent your own point of view. Iceberg3k 14:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Concerning the Maine, the Wiki article on the Maine and on the 1898 war contain no conspiracy theories about an intentional, false flag explosion. Admiral Rickover found that it was an internal explosion, not a mine, and took the neutral path of positing an accident. (A kind of coincidence theory, but all in all it was an interesting initiative on Rickover's part.) I'm afraid I had to google in Spanish to find a serious article discussing the incident from a false flag viewpoint, and am posting that source. It's http://www.mgar.net/cuba/maine.htm. If anyone finds a good recap of the arguments in English, then muchas gracias a Usted.
Interestingly, it appears that false flag incidents by enemies of the Allies are sourceable directly from Wiki, but alleged fakery by the US or UK is usually not to be found in the Wiki articles on the pertinent historical incidents, or if it is, then it gets only a line or two (e.g. Gulf of Tonkin incident). "The victors write the history books," at least the ones in English, it seems. Could be a good reason for listing those allegations here. JPLeonard 07:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I have not (yet) removed any information that is sourced by poor quality references. We can have those discussions at some point. But I have deleted, and will continue to delete, any information that does not have any source whatsoever. If you have a source, cite it; if you don't, then please don't add the info. --Satori Son 13:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Satori keeps deleting my reference to a revisionist view that false flag tactics have been used by the Anglo Americans to create war pretexts. First he said I sourced a personal blog. I put it back noting that the sources were a book author and a magazine article by a society, not one person. Then he deleted it again without explanation. I submit that neutrality according to Satori means the Anglo American POV. It means "We Anglo-Americans are always the good guys, and whoever we make war on are the bad guys, and if you don't like it well we are the majority and we call it neutral." I question the neutrality of this page and of the Wikipedia community as a whole as regards history and politics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JPLeonard (talk • contribs) 03:56, March 1, 2007 (UTC)

First of all, the source you provided was coat.ncf.ca, which is a personal blog and/or advocacy website that does not meet the requirements of WP:Attribution or WP:Reliable sources, which states "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple credible and verifiable sources, especially with regard to historical events [and] politically-charged issues...". If you can find multiple credible and verifiable sources for your claim, then please post them here and we can evaluate them and discuss the issue.

Second, I did not feel the need to leave a detailed comment the second time I removed it because I was reverting an edit by an anonymous IP editor who left a false edit summary ("vandalized"). Finally, please keep your personal attacks to yourself and be civil. An argumentum ad personam that skirts the real issue does not aid us in understanding your position. -- Satori Son 15:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Historical and contemporary parallels

I am for deleting most of this section (or all of it) because it encourages the addition of half baked conspiracy theories. For example "that the British empire itself was actually founded on a false flag intrigue, the Gunpowder Plot of 1605, and that Guy Fawkes was a patsy in a countergang used to create the pretext then for a series of wars with Spain." is a conspiracy theory which has been around for a very long time and is probably not true, but it is impossible to prove absolutely that it is not true, as it is that it is true. Almost any incident can be spun this way and as such is not worth the disk space and band width it takes up.

I suggest that all incidents that are not universally or near universally accepted as false flag operations are deleted from this section. An example of universally or near universally accepted false falg operation is Operation Greif and I would not object to it being included here if it was not in the in a previous section. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• I agree. This started out as a decent article about false flag activity, but this section has degenerated into a semi-comprehensible morass of conspiracy theories and tangentially related propaganda examples. What sources are provided are of poor quality, and much of the material is blatantly editorial. I strongly support its complete removal or, at the very least, a major purge of the majority of "information" here. --Satori Son 17:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Re: "half baked conspiracy theories", a false flag op is by definition a conspiracy. Concerning theories, you almost never get a smoking gun like Operation Northwoods. Usually the suspected culprits are the sovereign power, so you never get a court. So you have opposing theories. In such cases, I doubt if "universally accepted" is Wiki policy, because it amounts to censorship and blindly authoritarian views.
• Re "started out as a decent article about false flag activity" please note my remark that originally this article contained material about US false flag ops, which has all been removed. I am restoring it. "Decent" apparently means to the vigilantes, as I noted above, that only foreign countries are implicated. That is blatant bias.
• Re "blatantly editorial," as noted above I am trying to use NPOV. Please specify any choice of words that you think should be improved, and I will try to improve them, or be so good as to try yourself instead of deleting the whole section.
• The argument about bandwidth is a pathetically weak fallacy. Why not dismantle the whole internet and save miles of bandwidth? Why not delete all topics and have an encyclopedia with no pages, look at all the paper and space you would save? I have made my references brief; you call this rambling. You just don't like the topic. But it is by any standard a very important one. You don't think it's important if the US starts wars by fabricating pretexts? Maybe it was important to 650,000 Iraqi civilians were killed in the last couple years? Along with thousands of soldiers who were just trying to support their families? How does your bandwidth stack up against their concern?
• If this is an edit war, for the record, you have started it. I am working to improve in line with suggestions made. Let us put it back as it was and continue work on it. I will continue to do so if you are willing to be more specific and logical about suggestions for improvement, other than simply deleting topics.
• The title of this section includes the word "parallels." I include some related types of operations because this gives the context of a false flag op in the category of provocations. I think that is appropriate for an encyclopedia. If there is a good article on provocation, then I'm agreed to include that material there, but it makes it easier to understand to have these related types of operations at least parenthetically mentioned together.

--—The preceding unsigned comment was added by JPLeonard (talk • contribs) 02:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The expression "disk space and band width it takes up" is an different way of saying "not worth the paper they are written on" which means of very little worth. Please keep to well documented cases. Those with court cases are particularly good because there is a valid and detailed paper trail. --Philip Baird Shearer 07:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV, according to conformist thinkers, apparently means conspiracies do not exist. But how can you have a false flag operation without a conspiracy? There are no neutral viewpoints in politics. The closest you can get to a neutral point of view is to allow the interplay of opposing views, not force everybody to listen to your conformist onesided POV.

Mainila Summary inaccuracy?

In the article, on Mainila, it says: "Some Russian historians have claimed that the Finns shelled themselves with the intent of later attacking the Soviet Union." However, reading the main article on Mainila, and from the context of the talk comment above, it looks like it was the russians that were shelled by the russians. Given that, the above quote from the article doesn't seem to make any sense. If mainila was a russian village, as clearly stated in the main Mainila incident article, why would russian historians be saying that 'The Finns shelled themselves'? This doesn't make any sense and needs to be fixed, or at least clarified. It seems to be the case that someone though it was a Finnish village that was attacked, and extrapolated from there. I'm not sure why it's so badly wrong in this article, but I just came across it by random browsing, so I'm going to leave it to someone more knowledgeable about the domain to fix.

Alleged fake email example

The reference provided in support of the claim against Belinda Stronach is highly questionable. The link is to a right wing blog, which can hardly be considered an authoritative resource since the editors could easily have created the sample email and clearly have a political motive for promoting it. Unless someone can provide an independent verification of the fake email, this reference should be removed.

RAF material

I removed the following paragraph on the RAF, where it is more relevant (in which way did the RAF carry out false flag attacks? this text is about support by East Germany, not about false flag attacks) (Tazmaniacs 20:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)):

"East Germany gave covert support to the Red Army Faction (RAF), which was active from 1968 and carried out a succession of terrorist attacks in West Germany during the 1970s and to a lesser extent in the 1980s.Germany after 1945: The RAF(PDF) After German reunification in 1990, it was discovered that the RAF had received financial and logistic support from the Stasi, the security and intelligence organization of East Germany.Germany - E. Germany - Gen - MZ Schmeidel, John. "My Enemy's Enemy: Twenty Years of Co-operation between West Germany's Red Army Faction and the GDR Ministry for State Security." Intelligence and National Security 8, no. 4 (Oct. 1993): 59-72. "East German training and active support of the RAF by the GDR Ministry for State Security [footnote omitted] is now a documented fact." It had also given several RAF terrorists shelter and new identities.Espionage in a Divided Germany: The Stasi and the RAF It had not been in the interests of either the RAF or the East Germans to be seen as co-operating. The apologists for the RAF argued that they were striving for a true socialist (communist) society not the sort that existed in Eastern Europe. The East German government was involved in Ostpolitik, and it was not in its interest to be caught overtly aiding a terrorist organization operating in West Germany, but as a proxy war forming part of the Cold War it was a cost effective strategy. For more details see the History of Germany since 1945."

It was a false flag operation because "The East German government was involved in Ostpolitik, and it was not in its interest to be caught overtly aiding a terrorist organization operating in West Germany, but as a proxy war forming part of the Cold War it was a cost effective strategy." It turned out that the RAF were in fact an instrument of the Communist block something their detractors at the time had said and their apologists had denied. This is very different from President Reagan's overt support for the rebels of the Afghan war. Or the usual situation like the Libyan support for the IRA, ("my enemy's enemy") where no one ever accused the IRA of being puppets of the Libyan secret service. --Philip Baird Shearer 18:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with you here, but we should wait for input from other persons. The RAF may very well have been supported by the Stasi, but the RAF reinvidicated its attacks. It never blamed them on someone else, as far as I know. It claimed being independent, and wasn't. But that's not false flag, they were not "wearing the enemy's uniform". Tazmaniacs 15:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

We haven't had others comments yet. Can you please explain more clearly why they were "false flag" attacks? In which sense did the RAF disguise themselves as political opponents? They disguise support from the Stasi, all right. But this is very common, and in no way entail pseudo-ops or false flag attacks: do you know one guerrilla, urban or not, that hasn't been supported, in some way or another, by another state? In do you know many guerrillas who openly disclose where they take their funds from? Or states which publicly recognize interfering in the business of another country by funding or providing other assistance to such or such guerrilla? I really think this part should be moved to, on one hand, history of Germany, and, if you want, to urban guerrilla. Technically, you really can't consider it as either false flag or pseudo-ops. It is, I think, a shame, for you to take care of this article, in particular by this nicely written section on "laws of war", and by cleaning it from time to time of conspiracy theories related to 11-S, and on the other hand to insist including this section on the RAF for unknown reasons. Tazmaniacs 03:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that the connections between the RAF (I always find it odd using that acronym for the Baader-Meinhof Gang!) turned out to be sufficiently close that the RAF were infact fighting a low intensity war by proxy for the East Germans. --Philip Baird Shearer 08:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand that, Philip. But still, this does not technically makes it false flag: they did not disguise as Nazis, for example? A false flag attack would be, say, if Soviet agents disguised themselves as members of the KKK and burned crosses in the US in order to stir racial hatred. The Eastern Bloc has supported many guerrillas, and the Western world also supported, more or less openly, others. Jonas Savimbi has been supported in his life by many different powers. There are no guerrillas that can afford not to be supported by some state: you need weapons, you need money, and you need a sanctuary from which you can organise stuff. But it is one thing to have political, financial or military support, and another to carry out a pseudo-operation. Tazmaniacs 12:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you don't know your communist factions! The RAF were basically Luxemburgists & Trotskyists, and which to the decendets of Stalinists were beyond the pale and to the two factions were totally different. It is like mixing up national socialists and social democrats -Philip Baird Shearer 17:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't really care, but I think you ought to be a bit more sceptical about my POV... Anyway, now I do hear your argument, why don't you clearly express it in the article. Something like: "although the RAF claimed to belong to the anti-Stalinist left, they have allegedly been supported by the Stasi"? Tazmaniacs 18:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, the RAF - Baader Meinhof material was here originally as an example of NATO sponsored false flag terrorism along the lines of the Red Brigades in Italy. It's ironic that it's now been pointed at East Germany.

The problem with this page is that conformist thinkers don't like to the idea that the Anglo Americans are probably biggest (ab)users of false flag war pretexts of anybody, so they find an excuse to take down as many such referances as possible, leaving the Japanese, Germans and Russians as the obligatory villains. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.121.32.206 (talk • contribs) 00:52, March 1, 2007 (UTC)

I personally strongly suggest to keep this page for false flag incidents in the strict sense of the word, which is "disguising one self as his own enemy and engaging into attacks under this disguise". This rule out both RAF - since RAF did not disguise themselves as nazi terrorists; and Gulf of Tonkin incident, since the US didn't shoot on themselves during this incident. That they are manipulation in history & politics is an all too-well known facts. Suffice it to recall Saddam Hussein's alleged WMD, the yellowcake forgery, etc. But all of this has got nothing to do with false flag. RAF material, if Philip was honest, should be moved to a more relevant page. Honestly, I don't think RAF or Gulf of Tonkin are really controversial matters... Tazmaniacs 04:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I moved it again. Really, it doesn't suit the definition. It should goes, I don't know, RAF, Stasi, History of Germany or Active measures. Tazmaniacs 04:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tazmaniacs. This was not a truly "false flag" operation (i.e., "RAF did not disguise themselves as Nazi terrorists"). -- Satori Son 15:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Algerian civil war

Move here for further discussion

>== Algerian civil war ==

Further information: Algerian civil war

In the conclusion of Escadrons de la mort, l'école française [1], journalist Marie-Monique Robin cites the 2003 report by Algeria-Watch titled Algérie, la machine de mort, which stated:

"To conserve their power and their fortunes nurtured by corruption, those who have been called the généraux janviéristes (Generals of January) — Generals Larbi Belkheir, Khaled Nezzar, Mohamed Lamari, Mohamed Médiène, Smaïl Lamari, Kamal Abderrahmane and several others — did not hesitate in triggering against their people a salvage repression, using, at a unpreceded scale in the history of civil wars of the second half of the XXth century, the "secret war" technics theorized by certain French officers during the Algerian War for Independence, from 1954 to 1962: death squads, systemic torture, kidnapping and disappearances, manipulation of the violence of opponents, desinformation and "psychological action", etc." [1][2].

Citing Lounis Aggoun and Jean-Baptiste Rivoire, Françalgérie. Crimes et mensonges d'État (2004) [3], Marie-Monique Robin refers to false flag attacks committed by Algerian death squads formed by secret agents who disguised as Islamist terrorists:

As the French Main rouge [a terrorist group during the 1960s which may have been constituted by French secret services ] or the Argentine Triple A, [the Algerian military] created, end of 1993, the Organisation des jeunes Algériens libres (OJAL) and the OSSRA (Organisation secrète de sauvegarde de la République algérienne, Secret Organisation of Safeguard of the Algerian Republic) : they were, purely and simply, commandos composed of men from the regime's political police, the sinister DRS. After having liquidated tens of opponents, passing as anti-Islamist civils, these pseudo-organisations disappeared in mid-1994. Because at the same moment, the leaders of the DRS prefered to generalise the unfolding and action of death squads also composed of their men, but passing by as Islamist terrorists. [4]

I think it is badly written and does not make sense to me. It seems to be a ramble about lots of things not to do with false flag operations like "death squads, systemic torture, kidnapping and disappearances, manipulation of the violence of opponents,". If any ond this information is to stay in this article it should only be that which is specific to the topic. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for explanations. I thought it best to quote directly, and translation may be akward. But I'm sure you'll agree that it doubtlessly concerns false flag actions: Algerian intelligence officers were disguising as Islamist terrorists. The Algerian Civil War was full of events like that, and it is one of the reason of the controverse regarding the amnesty towards Islamists (while state agents have yet to be judged). So, maybe we can reduce the whole thing to :

"False flag tactics were also employed during the Algerian civil war, starting in the mid-1994. Death squads composed of DRM security forces disguised themselves as Islamist terrorists." with the source if someone wants to check? Tazmaniacs 15:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Provinding the cited sources are left with the text that seems much better to me. But it might be better to start it "Xyz and others have claimed that false flag tactics were employed during the Algerian Civil War..." --Philip Baird Shearer 16:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Massive Attack

Massive Attack released a single titled "False Flags" that features political elements and national elements. Should this be noted?--[[User:Yossi842| Yossi842]] 02:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The expression "false flag"

Is there any documented use of the expression "false flag"? Cowpriest2 15:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

How is Operation Ajax a "false flag" operation?

While it is common knowledge that both the US and Britain had a part in the 1953 coup in Iran, but I fail to see how that makes it an example of a false flag operation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.136.192.1 (talk) 15:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah well its common (scientific) knowledge the attacks on the pentagon and world trade center are not consistent with factual information....sheep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.77.135.111 (talk) 06:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I think 162.136.192.1 might be correct. How is Operation Ajax a false flag operation? It sounds like a coup to me. The article doesn't explain why Operation Ajax should be considered a false flag operation. Can anyone explain why? If not, this section should be removed. 12.10.248.51 (talk) 20:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation - Two meanings of false flag

There appear to be two meanings of "false flag" used on this page:

1) To display another countries flag, wear uniform or otherwise disguise oneself in order to make an attack on an enemy in war. Example, german soldiers wearing american uniforms during wartime.

2) To frame another country for an attack as a pretext for some further action (starting a war, misleading the public, skewing an election) Example, if the Nazis burned down the reichstag to blame it on the communists.

While both these involve deception, the goals are different. Hence, These are quite different meanings and the page treats them as if they are the same. This may lead to some confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by C8to (talk • contribs) 10:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

In politics

False flag operations in politics is at least 50 years younger (and probably much more than that) than the 2006 incident mentioned in the article. Robert A. Heinlein went as far as write a short story in which this technique was used, and commented on the short story that all the political techniques in the story were genuine, of which he had first hand knowledge. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 07:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to political campaigning in the "civilian usage" section? If so, please provide some sources, and I'd be glad to research and incorporate them. Legitimus (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Examples of False Flag attacks as pretexts for war.

This section is supposed to list examples of false flag operations. I'm troubled by the fact that several well-known examples of false flag operations (such as Operation Himmler) are given even weight with 9/11 conspiracy theories and other non-false flag operations.

Although there is much controversy whether the USS Maine was destroyed by a bomb or by a boiler room accident, I've never heard any serious historian ever claim that it was a false flag operation. Likewise, I have never heard of any historian ever claim that Gulf of Tonkin Incident or 9/11 was a false flag operation.

I propose we split the section into three. Confirmed False Flag Operations (Mukden incident, Operation Northwoods, etc.), Potential or Possible False Flag Operations (Reichstag Fire), Debunked or Unsubstantiated False Flag Operations (9/11). 12.10.248.51 (talk) 19:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Esta claro, que al gobierno de España lo último que le interesaba era entrar en guerra con EEUU y que el hundimiento del Maine fue una maniobra para poder declarar la guerra a España y asi poder quedarse con las colonias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.55.207.226 (talk) 08:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Gulf of Tonkin Incident

I removed the 3 paragraphs regarding the Gulf of Tonkin Incident since it was not a false flag operation. In fact, the three paragraphs on the Gulf of Tonkin Incident didn't even attempt to the make the case for it being a false flag operation. This suggests to me that the original author either had a hidden agenda or did not understand what the term 'false flag' means, or perhaps both.

Hint: false flag would mean that US troops secretly dressed up as North Vietnamese and pretended to be NV as they attacked USS Maddox. Since the August 4 attack didn't happen, it couldn't have possibly been faked. Like I said, it appears to me that the original author either didn't understand what 'false flag' means or they had some sort of hidden agenda. 12.10.248.51 (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I have undone this removal of text since the above requirement of actually having to dress up in enemy uniforms is spurious, and this incident is universally given as a prime example of a false flag operation in modern times. __meco (talk) 14:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

If it is "universally given", I hope some WP:RS sources can be found and cited in the Wikipedia article Gulf of Tonkin incident. You could also add that article to the category "False flag incidents." This article is not a list of all the real or hypothetical false flag incidents in history. Furthermore, it makes more sense for you to debate its "false flag" or not categorization with people who watch that article, not with people who watch this one. betsythedevine (talk) 15:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I have attempted to find reliable sources to support my position, and that was difficult. It seems that all references to the Tonkin incident and false flag come from well-known conspiracy theorists. __meco (talk) 16:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

We have a problem

Whether it's the same user (my suspicion) or a small group of users, this 9/11 nonsense keeps getting added back in. Aside from the fact that it's unsourced and uncited, it's also nonsensical and defamatory. Enigma ^message Review 19:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, it's being added by that lunatic fringe group. I had forgotten about them. Wikipedia would be a better place if they stopped coming here. Enigma ^message Review 19:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It's still a regular occurance on this page, almost constant by my observation. I don't normally get involved, but I always see little "drive-by" edits from anonymous users adding the information in, which are quickly reverted. This user just happens to be a bit more persistent. Legitimus (talk) 22:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Might be worthwhile to leave it there in a very abbreviated form and just link it to the 9/11 conspiracy theory page. An example of the difficulty of confirming false flag activities is probably better linked to the Reichstag fire since it's less inflammatory (irony intentional).Somedumbyankee (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

yeah, the last edit was to trim down the 9/11 junk to just one sentence. I'm undecided on whether we should keep that reference or not. Enigma ^message Review 07:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand 9/11 conspiracy theories are a rather famous claim of false flag. It's all bull of course, but it's famous bull, and an encyclopedia documents famous bull. Weregerbil (talk) 07:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

What part exactly is being referred to in this discussion? What is the problem? Statements like "9/11 nonsense" or "famous bull" don't convey much. Could you please cite instead? --Nuneil (talk) 00:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Comcast

I removed the paragraph about Comcast since it was not a false flag operation. 12.10.248.51 (talk) 14:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The Comcast paragraph has been reworded to illustrate how it is a false flag stunt. Also, this IP has a long history of vandalism.Legitimus (talk) 17:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

False flag would be if Comcast pretended to be another company and then made statements/actions attributed to said company. No offense, but you don't seem to understand what false flag means. But to make matters even worse, you make false accusations against fellow Wikipedia editors. This only damages your credibility and makes all your edits suspect. I've reverted your changes. Please do NOT vandalize this article again and please do NOT make false allegations against fellow Wikipedia editors. Thank you. 67.184.14.87 (talk) 05:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not false flag in a government/military sense, but it is false flag as it's defined for businesses, IMO. I undid your removal. Please don't remove without a discussion. Enigma ^message Review 05:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Do any reliable sources describe it as a "false flag" operation? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I am perfectly willing to concede that it may not be, in the face of informed opinions from other editors. Technically it may be considered "astroturfing," (pretending to be the general public) which this article seems to indicate is a kind of false flag. I also originally wanted to not include the company's name for fairness, but somebody else put it back in.

However, I simply found the deletion suspicious after reading the history of warnings on that IP's record. And I said "IP," not "user." This is not an idle accusation either, mind you. That IP has DOCUMENTED warnings that stretch back for years.Legitimus (talk) 14:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

What's tricky with IPs is that it's difficult to know if it's the same user. Technically, this user may not have vandalized any of those old articles. You have to be careful when attributing vandalism to an IP, especially if it goes back years. Enigma ^message Review 15:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, like I said it wasn't me. In any case, I don't think this qualifies as a false flag operation and as Jayjg pointed out, we do not have any reliable sources describing this as a false flag. BTW, regarding the new edit, the first sentence says "mimic a seemingly unassociated public audience." While I can see why someone might draw that conclusion, the article doesn't actually say that. Sounds like this might qualify as original research. In fact, the second sentence kind of contradicts the first. Did Comcast pack the room to mimic an unassocatied public audience or to keep opponents from attending? Either way, I don't see this as a false flag operation. I'm not sure if this qualifies as astro-turfing either. 12.10.248.51 (talk) 16:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

eh, it was never a great example anyway. I was shooting for one sourced news article per sub-section. Originally I was looking for the story of this abortion clinic accountant that burned his place down to hide his embezzlement, then made it look like it was pro-lifers. Or the pro-life group that trashed their own office to make it look like pro-choice people did it.. But it felt kind of sensitive politically and anyway I could not locate the articles. It can go I guess, I'll keep looking for something better.Legitimus (talk) 17:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

This should be fairly straightforward; you should look for things that reliable sources describe as "false flag" operations. You shouldn't be trying to find examples based on your own definition of the term, and how well you think various actions fit it - that's original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Reichstag Fire

Removed reference to Reichstag Fire under "pretext for war" since it led, at least not in the immediate future, to any war. 98.225.75.169 (talk) 04:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the Reichstag fire is a pretty poor example for false flag operation, because a) it's unknown who actually started the fire, and b) nobody involved showed any "flag" in the matter. The Nazis might have framed van der Lubbe, but that doesn't seem to me to be a case of FF -- not to mention that the fact that the Nazis benefitted from the fire doesn't prove they started it. Removing it? --Syzygy (talk) 14:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Examples need citations

The use of examples in the Ideological section can be seen as NPOV as they tend to create examples that single out one group or ideology as the perpetrator of a false flag action. If what was listed did happen, then please supply a source otherwise it will be deleted. It is clear from reading this article, as well as the ongoing discussion, that those who create potential scenarios that may or may not have not actually happened, and those that portray one group in a negative way could be seen as disingenuous when no source is listed. Therefore, stick to example that can be cited please and not imaginary “what-if” scenarios to get the point across. Thank you. 128.205.145.158 (talk) 20:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)SABATSUNY

I see you immediately deleted the material in question here. While it would be nice to have some examples, I see your point about it being a little POV. Maybe someone can come up with some cited real-life instances at some point. — Satori Son 20:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing has been a bit difficult for some of those items. The creationist story still goes on in a little West Virginia town near Morgantown and Mineral County. There is a group there that leaves these little pamphlets around, then uses them during sermons and town meetings to point out "how stupid these Darwinist are." (Darwinists meaning anyone who believes in or wants to teach evolution). The address on it is fake, as is the phone number. I have one somewhere in a storage bin, but finding it is iffy at best. And even if I did scan it, would that meet the criteria for a reliable source? Probably not. The inherent difficulty of reporting on false flag is of course proving it. I will continue hunting for better, more clear-cut examples to offer.Legitimus (talk) 22:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed the sinking of the USS Maine. I've never heard that this was a false flag operation and there was no cite to a reliable reference. 12.10.248.51 (talk) 13:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent cases is a joke and is thusly gone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.80.101 (talk) 06:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Íngrid Betancourt

Should we mention Operation Jaque? The Colombian army used Red Cross badges and passed as FARC members. --Error (talk) 21:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

FARC are defined as a force of occupation by the Geneva onvention. I am however not sure if FARC soldiers are legal combatants. FARC are well known for their own false flag operations, where they have posed as policemen who unusualy enough happened to gun down people. Red Cross are rightful to voice their own concern to what Colombian soldiers may have done with their badge, but the FARC should not criticise people who con them with their own dirty tricks.

How did Operation Ajax get back into the article?

Per the previous discussion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:False_flag#How_is_Operation_Ajax_a_.22false_flag.22_operation.3F

Operation Ajax was removed from the article. Does Operation Ajax really belong in this article? 67.184.14.87 (talk) 02:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Linked to Conspiracy theory

It seems as if we have a bit of revert war regarding whether to include this article as part of conspiracy theories. As the article currently stands, I suspect that it should be. However, the real problem is that we've allowed the conspiracy theories to get into the article in the first place. The real solution to the problem is to remove all the conspiracy theories per Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I took a second look at the article and it doesn't seem to be too bad. We should remove the links to 3/11, 7/7 and 9/11 conspiracy theories. As long as we remove the stuff about conspiracy theories, I think the article should be fine. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm just curious why there is such passion to remove a single see-also, when there is nothing that makes it specific to one theory or another. Someone out there is canvassing their tinfoil hat club. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 01:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't know if "passion" is the right word. But we are supposed to follow Wikipedia policies. It's our job as editors. Anyway, I think the issue is quite easy to resolve. How many reliable sources explicitly state that 3/11, 7/7 and 9/11 are false flag operations? If there are none, the decision is simple. We remove them. End of story. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm cool with that either way, I am more addressing the removal of the generic link, which doesn't point fingers in any direction. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 04:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Ideological

I removed:

In late 2007, a rash of Swastikas and other anti-semitic vandalism appeared on a Jewish student's door at George Washington University. Police subsequently placed a hidden camera, and discovered that the vandalism was perpetrated by the victim herself. The student claimed that the first incident of vandalism was real (committed by an unknown person), but she perpetrated the remaining incidents to draw attention to the university's inaction.

It doesn't seem particularly relevant given that I don't see anything 'ideological' about the actions and the definition we give says "to discredit or implicate rival groups, create the appearance of enemies when none exist, or create the illusion of organized and directed opposition when in truth, the ideology is simply unpopular with society" none of which clearly apply in this (if the motives given are accurate, and we have no evidenced they are not. Also a single incident (well series of interrelated very similar incidents) by one lone individual hardly seems particularly relevant to this article. Nil Einne (talk) 23:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree. Apparently the section was added in November 2007 by User:Legitimus, but it appears to be to be pure original research. Aside from the fact the incident doesn't fit the definition of "false flag", according to what reliable source is this a "false flag" operation? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

If this isn't a false flag attack, then why is the part about Ashley Todd's mugging in here? Miss Todd could easily have been an Obama supporter trying to undermine the Republican Campaign by trying to make it look "Racist" by staging a rediculous attack that would be proven to be a hoax, just in time for Obama to gain new "guilty white" supporters. Wait I forgot, the media isn't suppose to show Jews in a negative light. What surprises me since the Cairo incident is listed here, but then again the USS Liberty is not. In fact there are many incidents where Rabbi's have been caught painting Swastika's on the doors of their synagoges, so it's not like that was an isolated incident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.88.73.130 (talk) 19:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Whatever -- this page is for discussions about how to improve article "False Flag", not your general political and racial rants. The USS Liberty incident could never fall under "false flag", because there's no particular evidence that the government of Israel attempted to cast blame onto any other country... AnonMoos (talk) 07:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Naval warfare

I've replaced this:
"British Q-boats were notorious for this behaviour during World War I, which Germany used as a reason for its own use of unrestricted submarine warfare. "
There’s unlikely to be a citation for it, as it’s untrue; the start of USW pre-dates the use of Q-ships by about half a year.
Besides it’s hopelessly POV; (German) auxiliary cruisers operated in this “acceptable “ fashion, while British Q-ships were “notorious” for it? FFS! Xyl 54 (talk) 02:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Intro should reflect actual usage of "false flag"

The term "false flag" is in practice widely used for misrepresenting the source or motivation of many different kinds of activity, including activity by individuals.

• "UNDER THE false flag of economic stimulus, the House is being asked today by its Republican leadership to approve another large tax cut mainly for the non-needy" Washington Post 2001
• "The memo also allowed the "false flag" technique of "convincing the detainee that individuals from a country other than the United States are interrogating him. " BBC 2005
• "It’s going to be interesting to see how long it is before drivers start sending out ‘false flag’ reports of available spots in order to divert attention from real parking spots." Commenter on NYT blogpost

Seeing no evidence of any authority for this article's claim that "false flag" is restricted to deceptive activities by "covert operations conducted by governments, corporations, or other organizations," I am removing it.betsythedevine (talk) 13:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Sack of Mecca in 930 AD

Wasn't this a false flag attack, with the Qarmatian attackers operating under a false Fatimid flag, in the hope that the Abbasids would believe that the Fatimids were responsible? Are there any other good examples of pre-modern false flag attacks? --GCarty (talk) 14:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

How about creating a "false flag" category?

Many people are eager to see some particular event mentioned here as a false flag incident, but there is no way this article could include all real "false flag" deceptions, still less all the hypothetical or potential ones. What might work better would be to create a "false flag" category, and let people add that category to each relevant article, where the inclusion or non-inclusion could then be debated.

Something similar is already done for political controversies, e.g. Categories: Political scandals in the United States | Political corruption | Reagan administration controversies | etc. What do others think, and does anyone know how to do this? betsythedevine (talk) 16:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we already have a Category:False flag operations. --GCarty (talk) 09:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, GCarty! betsythedevine (talk) 23:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The Boston Tea Party

The story is about dressing up as Indians (Native Americans) and dump valuable tea of British cargo ships. Is there a false flag, or did these incidents take place before the notion of white flag was invented?

"Carlos Lam incident"

It seems like undue weight for the bit about Lam and Scott Walker to be included in this article, since it was merely a proposed false flag operation for which there is no evidence of any attempt to implement. Also the way it was originally written smacks of an attempt to score points for the Democrat side of that dispute (yes I know about assuming good faith, but there's a point where suspension of disbelief is pretty tough). Miraculouschaos (talk) 04:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Or ... it could be a pristine example of a text-book "False Flag" operation (whether or not we can prove that it was executed). I don't see "Democrats" mentioned anywhere in the text, which makes your comment curious, to say the least. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Expert needed

I am having a great deal of trouble finding the definition of "false flag" used here in any reliable source, and especially not any legally oriented reliable source. The definition absolutely must be well-cited and be a legally/historically accepted definition. Furthermore, the historical examples are poorly documented and many show indications of original research. I think this will not be fully solved until an expert in the legal/historical definitions of "false flag", and historical instances of it, looks over the article. Wikiacc (¶) 21:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, as regards original research, we need to cite reliable secondary sources claiming that each of the historical examples was a false flag operation (anything else would be synthesis of our definition and the historical facts, which is unacceptable). An expert could point towards sources that do so, since I can't find any, though of course anyone's welcome to go searching. Wikiacc (¶) 21:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Definition of the term

I am beginning to suspect that the definition used here isn't correct. Take, for instance:

The F.B.I. said it had ensared Mr. Pitts through some elaborate fakery of its own. Using what the bureau calls a False Flag operation, F.B.I. agents posing as Russian intelligence officers contacted Mr. Pitts in August 1995, long after it believed he had ceased his spying activities, and feigned interest in reactivating him as a means of confirming his spying activities and determining how much information he may have provided to Moscow.

"F.B.I. Supervisor Charged With Spying for Russians", New York Times, December 19, 1996 This has nothing to do with the public, but Wikipedia's definition does. Why? Wikiacc (¶) 22:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

More evidence, supporting the FBI definition, but not ours:

11. A "false flag" denotes an undercover operation in which a United States law enforcement officer poses as an intelligence operative of a foreign country. The purpose of a false flag is to determine whether a suspected spy intends to or has committed espionage against the United States.

Affidavit, 10/16/09, by FBI agent Leslie Martell, fifth page. Wikiacc (¶) 22:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

And more:

In August 1996, the F.B.I. began a false flag operation in which undercover agents posed as South African officials and spies to enlist Ms. Squillacote in spying for South Africa. [2]

According to court papers and interviews, Kuo and his Chinese handlers ran what intelligence professionals call a "false flag" operation on Bergersen, a weapons systems analyst, making him believe that the information he was providing was going to Taiwan, an American ally, not Beijing. [3]

Wikiacc (¶) 22:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

9/11 Terrorism

Until there is irrefutable evidence linking the US to 9/11 than it simply cannot be put on this wiki. It has nothing to do with wikipedia being mainstream. It has to do with credible facts. I know there is a ton of things linking certain people and organizations to 9/11 but it is just not proven yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.150.198 (talk) 23:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to remove the sentence "9/11 is thought by some of being false flag terrorism, conducted by the U.S government so they can invade Iraq for oil." because it is quite clearly only "thought by some" who think about conspiracy theories, and is not an accepted theory by any normal person. May I? GaelicWizard 11:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure! At most a link could be kept in the "see also" section, linking to 9/11 conspiracy theories (IMO, the link should be kept: if it is, I think, a fact that 9/11 was not a false flag attack, it is also a fact that parts of the public opinion and several political groups claim that it was such a false flag attack: the problem is not so much in alluding to 9/11 — anyhow, the allusion is not very original — but rather in the vagueness of the sentence — "is thought by some" — and the unilateral motive given — "so they can invade Iraq for oil" — I'm not a specialist of conspiracy theories, but I gather that hundreds of motives might be given to an alleged false flag attack during 9/11, and oil is only one in a dozen of them...) Tazmaniacs

I seriously doubt the US had anything to do with 9/11 but it would still qualify as a false flag event if the government although not involved knew it was to happen. I've seen many polls which show a very large minority (40%?) of people in the US do believe the government had foreknowledge which takes it out of the realm of conspiracy theories. Wayne 02:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

911 was False Flag. Come on Wikipedia. Stop telling people lies like the mainstream media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.99.5.174 (talk) 08:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it would qualify as a false flag operation. A false flag operation is carried out by a government but attributed to others. Alternatively, it could be that a government has foreknowledge of such an operation but allow it to be completed because the result might be used for political gain. Though it is clear that the US government had some foreknolwedge of a possible attack, there is little to suggest that reports were deliberately ignored for political gains. Otherwise, we might as well publish all sorts of conspiracy theories surrounding possible false flag ops. 85.210.32.208 15:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The evidence is there that the 9/11 terror attacks were a product of false flag operations as a pretext for war. More and more people are questioning the attacks including the way the towers were brought down including WTC 7 which somehow caught fire and ended up falling like one would pull a building under demolition.208.107.168.154 02:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the WTC and Pentagon as false flag attacks as a pretext for war - maybe presumptuous of me, maybe there should be a citation. Don't really want to get involved here. Also let's get things straight - 9/11 was treated as an attack on NATO and part of the lead up to war in Afghanistan - not Iraq - at least get those facts straight. How quickly people forget what happens.

I just love the fact that every case given under "Terrorism and false flag operations" is either the US or one of its allies doing something naughty It just confirms my long held belief that Wikipedia is a bastion of liberal/socialists/communists writing history. Let's just rename the article "American and Allies BAD, Islamists and Commies Good".Doug rosenberg 12:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to provide examples of other countries performing false flag operations, in fact, I hope you do so. I suspect the real reason why there are no examples listed for non-US allies is that most other countries in the world are not nearly as open with their information or investigations as America. Imagine if, say, Syria were to perform a false flag operation. Do you think they'd let the media talk about it, or hold an investigation in public view? Not likely. The reason we see more false flag operations listed for America and it's allies is not a bias in the editing but a bias in the reporting of such events, due precisely to our relatively government transparency as compared with the rest of the world. -Interested2 15:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Reichsteig and Operation Gladio(although that was CIA and Italy), Putin did a false flag with that school in Russia. I'm pretty sure you are right that there have been thousands of other false flags dating back thousands of years. I think you are not getting the point if you think we are anti-american for pointing out US false flag attacks. We only point them out because we believe America is about being better than all the Communist, Fascists and the rest of the tyrannical regimes throughout history. If we are doing false flag attacks then we as a people who believe in hard work, honesty, turhtfulness, free markets and free people....we need to fix the corrupt government that is targeting us civilians with tyrannical strategies only fit for the type of people you are ignorantly accusing us of being...ONE false flag attack in AMERICA is too many! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.219.192.46 (talk) 21:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess it is only natural and human to wish to think that conspiracies or false flags only happened in the past and in other countries. We Finns are no strangers to false flag operations: we have the Mainila shots, perpetrated by the Russian army and blamed on Finland as a pretext for the Winter War.

In the last several years I've learned about operation Gladio, the FSB involvement in the Moscow apartment bombings in order to trigger the Second Chechen War, the imaginary Gulf of Tonkin incident (technically speaking not a false flag op), and many others... including, I dare say, 9/11. Why do I think so? There are just too many things that point in that direction, including (in no particular order):

• who profited (qui bono) from the attacks and the "unending war" that ensued, and had the motive and the means
• what has happened (legislatively and otherwise) after 9/11 in the USA has frightening parallels to what happened in Germany in the 1930s
• the lack of any kind of air force response during the almost 2-hour hijacking drama (and I refer to interception, not shooting down)
• the fact that the Pentagon (of all buildings) was not protected in any way, even though an air force base was not far, and flight 77 could approach it for 40 minutes
• Norman Mineta's testimony, placing Cheney in the white house command bunker, talking about the plane approaching the Pentagon; the 9/11 Commission disregarded this and other evidence and stated that Cheney wasn't even there at the time without providing counter-evidence
• the changing official explanations for the lack of air response; the second official explanation, which was replaced by the Commission's version, was held for several years (yet that would have been amounted to lying to investigators, which I think is a crime)
• the fact that there was a large anti-hijacking exercise under way simultaneously with the real events
• no one was ever fired or otherwise punished after 9/11, which runs counter to the "disasterous incompetence" argument
• the relative lack of a examination of the debris of the three skyscrapers, especially that of building 7 (NIST: "no steel was recovered from WTC 7" - this is against all normal investigation practices)
• the reports by first responders and even by media people of explosions in the towers, and the non-examination of the cause of these explosions. Several explosions can actually be heard in the Italian documentary to be found on YouTube, the relevant part titled - according to what one first responder said - "Seven is exploding"
• all three buildings came down at the speed of approximately 7 floors per second (or one floor in 0.14 seconds)
• they cannot explain the freefall destruction of WTC 7, showing all the characteristics of a skillfully executed controlled demolition; the NIST report on it has been postponed once again

These are just some quick examples. And, for the record, I abhor the idea that 9/11 belongs to the long list of false-flag operations. I wish it didn't. But if that is where the evidence leads me, I have no choice but to go there. And that is where people all over the world are increasingly going - cf. the recent statement by Italy's ex-president Francesco Cossiga that 9/11 was an inside job. Note that Cossiga had been setting up operation Gladio and played a part in revealing it, so his comments cannot be dismissed lightly. The possibility that the "war on terror" is based on a false flag operation has also just been raised at the top political level in Japan.

I think it is time that more Wikipedia editors, too, take a more serious look at the evidence provided by the 9/11 Truth Movement. If 9/11 too was a false flag, we cannot afford to let it only be acknowledged in the history books of the future. The official conspiracy story needs to be submitted to the same critical scrutiny as the alternative conspiracy stories. Perscurator (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment on the above: Nowhere close to "40%" of Americans think the government knew we were going to be attacked then. Enigma ^message Review 14:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Right now there is no reference to 9/11 and the probability that is was a false flag operation and an inside job. Problem is: We don't know what is the truth. How can this be adequately noted? --W-sky (talk) 15:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is it ok to discuss on this page but not the other? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.89.83.197 (talk) 10:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The Lavon Affair as a "false flag" (sources)

Uri Avnery:

"The end was sad. Following this line, the army carried out a false-flag sabotage campaign against US and British targets in Egypt designed to cause strife between Egypt and the West. The action failed, the agents were caught and the army chiefs pointed the finger at Lavon, who had to resign shamefully. (This "affair" had far-reaching political results and led eventually to the downfall of Ben-Gurion himself)." (emphasis added) [4]

Uri Avnery again:

"Haolam Hazeh fought for the separation of state and religion, for human rights, the rights of the Arab minority, equality between Jews of European and Oriental descent, the adoption of a written constitution (still lacking), women’s rights, civil rights and much more. It was the first to uncover the facts of the infamous Lavon Affair (concerning an Israeli false flag operation in Egypt), as well as scores of corruption affairs." (emphasis added)[5]

Jewish Review:

"Within weeks, an Israeli military intelligence unit known by its code-number, 131, recruited nine young Egyptian Jews to stage terrorist attacks that, they thought, would be blamed on local insurgents and would discredit Nasser's rule. Seen as a potential bulwark against Soviet influence in the Middle East, Nasser enjoyed the quiet backing of the United States. But Israel wanted to prevent Washington from becoming too friendly with the Cairo junta, which was spearheading Arab hostility to the Jewish state. The Egyptian Jewish spy cell firebombed American-linked sites--libraries, post offices, cinemas--in Cairo and Alexandria, causing some consternation but no casualties. And then the plot backfired, literally. A bomb exploded in the pocket of one of the recruits, Philip Natanzon, before he could plant it in an Alexandria movie house, setting his clothes on fire in the middle of the bustling port city." (emphasis added) [6]

The book "Global Terrorism" by James M Lutz, Brenda J Lutz - 2004 (it appears to be a school textbook):

"Israel even used 'false flag' operations. In 1954 sympathetic Jews in Egypt used bombs and arson against US installations. The objective was for local Arab..." improved link provided by PR^talk

This is just the first few I found. --64.79.161.40 17:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Why was the Lavon Affair removed from the section as "A pretext for war"? Is it because it was a false flag operation that failed because it was counter-detected and subsequently failed to be used as a pretext for war? It was listed as a false flag operation on Wikipedia some few months ago, but in this article it is not. I understand that Wikipedia has been captured in regards to 9/11, the Oklahoma City bombing, and the 1993 WTC bombing, but I want to know if Israel's false flag operations are also protected from exposure on this Wikipedia format, which is the 7th largest website according to Acroterion. Gauzeandchess (talk) 12:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

There's no indication that the operation was a "pretext for war"; I haven't seen any reliable sources indicating it was one. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Under what conditions would Operation Susannah, which was a false flag operation conducted by Israel attacking American and British targets in Egypt while pretending to be the Muslim Brotherhood in order to blame the Muslim Brotherhood and satisfy Israel's other foreign policy objectives, be included in this article about false flag operations? Do you think that this Israeli false flag operation deserves to be included in this Wikipedia article about false flag operations? Except for the failure aspect of the Lavon Affair, it seems like this operation is an archetype false flag operation. Gauzeandchess (talk) 13:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

So you agree that there are no sources indicating it was a "pretext for war"? By the way, the Muslim Brotherhood was just one of many potential "blamees". Jayjg ^(talk) 21:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

So you agree that the Lavon Affair is an archetype false flag operation? It will be no difficulty to change the "pretext for war" heading to "Historical examples of false flag operations" using the Lavon Affair as the best known example. Don't you think so Jayjig? As this article points out, there are many reasons a nation, such as Israel and the United States, commit false flag operations that are not restricted to the limited "pretext for war" grouping. Perhaps, if the present restrictive heading prevents including the Lavon Affair, then it would be useful to the Wikipedia community to read about the other reasons countries execute false flag operations, such as to influence another nation's foreign policy, such as in the case of the Lavon Affair. After this reading and understanding of why countries perform false flag operations that are not restricted to being used as a "pretext for war" grouping, one can change the heading to reflect the definition of false flag operations in the article's heading, which are not exclusively restricted to the "pretext for war" grouping, or additional headings can be added to include those "other objectives", such as the objectives of the Lavon Affair to influence English and American foreign policy. Perhaps the Lavon Affair could be included under a different heading, such as Pseudo operations? Gauzeandchess (talk) 09:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree it was a false flag operation, or at least it should be fairly easy to find reliable sourcing for that claim. Once the sourcing is found, it would logically belong in the "Pseudo-operations" section, between the Mau Mau uprising and Selous Scouts paragraphs. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

need picture

this page needs a picture of the richestag set on fire by hitler in false flag as the main picture in the top right corner — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.175.186.236 (talk) 03:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Korean war

Isnt the north's tactics to start the korean war a false flag? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Undeadplatypus (talk • contribs) 17:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Early example from 1788

The Russo-Swedish war in 1788 started with a false flag operation, and should perhaps be mentioned in the article:

"In 1788, a head tailor of the Royal Swedish Opera received an order to sew a number of Russian military uniforms that later were used in an exchange of gunfire at Puumala, a Swedish outpost on the Russo-Swedish border, on June 27, 1788. The staged attack, which caused an outrage in Stockholm, was to convince the Riksdag of the Estates and to provide Gustav with an excuse to declare a "defensive" war on Russia."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Swedish_War_(1788%E2%80%931790) Halsingpurg (talk) 11:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Scope of the article

From the history of the article:

No need to discuss etymology in lead section. No need for long discussion of naval deception as this is not covert false flag operations.Revision as of 15:51, 12 December 2012 by Binksternet

what makes you think that this article is about "covert false flag operations" and not about the usage of false flags in general of which "covert false flag operations" are but a part? It seems to me that the current article is about false flags and not about "covert false flag operations".

While we discuss this I am reverting to the version before I wrote the new lead. -- PBS (talk) 16:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that the article should include both naval and covert uses of the term (along with the other notable instances). If, later on, any of these sections grow to sufficient size then they should be split off into their own articles. --Andrewaskew (talk) 22:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

That was for that reason I rewrote the lead (with the help of two other editors) to describe the contents of the article as prior to that I think that the lead over emphasised covert operation and did not reflect the contents of the article. -- PBS (talk) 10:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the article needs to be split into false flag operations in which the correct flag is quickly raised before attack, and covert false flag operations in which the false flag is intended to stay in place. One of those is primarily historic, especially naval, the other one is both historic and modern. I think the reader who is looking only for the modern meaning is immediately bogged down by historic naval usage. Binksternet (talk) 15:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Andrewaskew " If, later on, any of these sections grow to sufficient size then they should be split off into their own articles", but I don't think the article is large enough yet to need to become a summary style article. -- PBS (talk) 16:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Iraq wars etc

Why are some of the most notorious false flag operations missing in this article... have the 'Weapons of mass destruction' been found meanwhile?Frodo911 (talk) 20:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

That isn't a false flag. Not all deception is false flag. This article already includes too many things which are non-false flag deception such as the Ems telegram. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.95.126.178 (talk) 17:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Answer- Because Wikipedia has become a joke. It has probably been co-opted by the NSA. The primary use of the term "False Flag" on this planet is in reference to the attack of 9/11. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.162.4.7 (talk) 00:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

With regards to what is and isn't considered a 'good source'.

The administrator known as Tom Harrison deleted a section of the introductory text which referenced a reputable, verifiable, secondary source.

The text pointed out that this book/scholar believed the said subject was a part of politico-historical phenomenon called 'deep politics' and 'deep states'; topics relevant to the main subject matter.

The book in question was published by one of the world's most prestigious university presses: California (UC, Berkeley). (See here: http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520258716).

California University Press publications go through a thorough peer-review process, which includes examination by at least two outside experts. (See here: http://www.ucpress.edu/about.php?p=faq)

Additionally, according to Google Scholar, the book has been cited ample times by articles in relevant fields.(http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=pv.xjs.s.en_US.joeC7AlIzNQ.O&um=1&ie=UTF-8&lr=&cites=5899184170733594964</).

I am confused to why such a book would be considered 'not a good source', in Tom's words. Darkone123 (talk) 02:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)Darkone123

I think we know the answer. SaintAviator (talk) 06:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Pearl Harbor

A recent addition of material regarding the 1941 Pearl Harbor attack being commonly cited as a false flag incident was reverted (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=False_flag&oldid=591622003&diff=prev), with a note reading "Revert serious misunderstanding of this conspiracy theory versus the meaning of false flag. —User:Binksternet" I believe my cited sources reliably illustrated the case that Pearl Harbor is repeatedly labeled as a false flag, so where is the misunderstanding? Thank you. startswithj (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I've commented here, as there's no real need to have the same discussion split across several article talk pages since it's the regarding the same material. - Aoidh (talk) 22:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Startswithj -- "False flag" would mean that somebody other than Japan did the attacking, which sounds rather bizarre. AnonMoos (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The world is bizarre, doubly so for the human beings treading it's soil. If there are enough reliable sources to include Pearl Harbour as a suggested "false flag" operation, then we should mention the incident in this article. It's not like the US government has been totally devoid of people willing to carry out such operations, examples of confirmed plans are described on this very page! --Connelly90 12:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

No. This theory doesn't fit the definition of "false flag" in any way. There are no refs that say that it was a "false flag" operation. Lacking reliable sources saying it was a false flag operation we may not include it. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, if there are a lack of reliable sources for Pearl Harbour as a "false flag", or even reliable sources suggesting a debate, then I agree it shouldn't feature. --Connelly90 09:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Don't Assume Visitors Are Familiar With Your References.

This Article Mentions some "Hughes" and "deHaven-Smith". Exactly who are this "Hughes" and "deHaven-Smith"? There are no references, no footnotes, no links, or any other way for a visitor to know who these individuals are although they seem to have some implied authority on the matter. What basis are these names being provided from...?

Anyone contributing to a wiki article should understand they are providing information to individuals who do not necessarily have backgrounds in law, history, or the subject matter specifically. An article should be written to allow individuals to understand who named sources are, why they are provided as authorities, and references provided for further understanding and exploration for the visitor in order to provide them with a good understanding of the subject matter as far as they choose to pursue it.

If someone could please provide references to this "Hughes" and "deHaven-Smith", perhaps linking these names to any articles on these individuals themselves, or to subjects which they are acknowledged as authorities, it would be most appreciated. Gmeades (talk) 04:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

See here and here - these footnotes are in the lead section of the article where both authors are mentioned. Parsecboy (talk) 14:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Tonkin Gulf Incident

Related to the discussion above about the Maine sinking - I have removed the section from the article. It's not a false flag operation, the government knowingly lied about the second attack to manufacture the escalation of the war. That is not a false flag operation—if we're going to call it a potential false flag operation, we need at least a half-dozen reliable sources (since exceptional claims require exceptional sources) claiming that American torpedo boats (or whatever) fired on Maddox on 2 August. But since no one appears to be making that assertion, the section needs to go. Parsecboy (talk) 14:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Iran 1953 coup de'tat

The editor known as Capitalismojo has removed a section on the false flag event carried out via the CIA during TPAJAX Project in 1953, which helped to overthrow the Prime Minister of Iran. He claims that "None of refs refer to "false flag"", however, this report by the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2000/04/16/world/secrets-history-cia-iran-special-report-plot-convulsed-iran-53-79.html?src=pm&pagewanted=1) states, on page one, paragraph six: "...agency officers orchestrating the Iran coup... directed a campaign of bombings by Iranians posing as members of the Communist Party...." Additionally, on page three, paragraph thirteen, it further states: "In addition... the house of at least one prominent Muslim was bombed by C.I.A. agents posing as Communists." -- This event is the very definition of a false flag (see the introduction of the article explaining what they are), and simply because the source doesn't directly use the nomenclature 'false flag', it should not be disregarded (the term 'false flag' to describe such events is a modern reinterpretation; the original meaning referring to a tactic used by ships to deceive their enemy, therefore it's natural that the term generally wouldn't have been used in the way it is now used today (see deHaven-Smith, Lance. Conspiracy Theory in America, Austin: University of Texas Press, 2013, pp.225-226). Thus, the section on the false flag event during the Iranian coup via the CIA should be reinstated. Darkone123 (talk) 10:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

So you have determined through your own research that this was a "false flag" event. Please read WP:OR. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I have not determined through my own research, but rather via the research of the journalists and editors at The New York Times in said source. Logically put: 1) The term false flag, as outlined in the definition of the first sentence of the article, states that they describe "covert military or paramilitary operations designed to deceive in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by entities, groups or nations other than those who actually planned and executed them." 2) The source in question states that an event in which "covert military or paramilitary operations designed to deceive in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by entities, groups or nations other than those who actually planned and executed them," occurred during the 1953 Iranian coup de'tat. 3) Therefore, logically, said event falls under the definition of a false flag, and thus should be included in the article.

As previously mentioned, purely because the source doesn't describe the incident in the standard nomenclature, is not justification for its exclusion. If one were to follow that logic, none of the events described in the article should be included. Our divergence on the issue resides in the misunderstanding of the historical linguistics of the phenomenon. Again, as previously stated, the term 'false flag' has changed definitions in modern times, thus it will be virtually impossible to find historical sources using such nomenclature to describe the phenomenon outlined in the article (see deHaven-Smith, Lance. 2013. pp.225-226). I.e., false flag events were reported on via reputable sources in a time in which the definition was not the same. Therefore, it's unjustifiable to ask one's sources to use the nomenclature when referencing an historical event. To do so would essentially destroy the article, e.g. the Murkden incident, the Gleiwitz incident, the shelling of Mainila, even the planning of Operation Northwood would all have to be removed, as none of the sources officially describe the events in the modern term 'false flag'; though they obviously fall into the category regarding 'false flags' current definition.

I'm not entirely sure how dispute resolution works on Wikipedia, but I would love to have an independent group of reviewers to assess our discussion, and then determine for themselves whether the information is relevant and should be included in the article etc.

Kindest regards, Darkone123 (talk) 23:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I would like you to find a reliable source discussing the Iran coup as specifically "false flag" rather than you working it out on your own. Binksternet (talk) 00:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Binksternet. Find a reliable source that supports that and we can add it. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey Binksternet, thanks for your input. However, let me just clear up, I -- nor the source -- are pointing out that the 1953 Iranian coup is specifically a false flag event/incident; but rather, that at least one false flag event occurred during the coup. In this case, orchestrated via the CIA under the planning of Project APJAX (http://www.nytimes.com/2000/04/16/world/secrets-history-cia-iran-special-report-plot-convulsed-iran-53-79.html?src=pm&pagewanted=1 pp. 1 & 2).

Furthermore, by the standards you've argued for, the whole article would essentially have to be removed or deleted. If you check the sources, they don't specifically use the nomenclature 'false flag', due the fluctuation in the terms' meaning (see deHaven-Smith, Lance. 2013, pp.225-226). If you insist on only using sources which specifically refer to false flag events as false flags (or black flags [what about that term?]), rather than say 'an engineered provocation (see the sources regarding Operation Northwood for said terminology)' etc. then the whole article would have to be voided. Put another way, what you are arguing logically is that e.g. 2+2=4, but one can't say 2+2=4 is a 'sum' or 'calculation' unless a reliable secondary source states that said maths is such a thing. However, by the very definition of the nomenclature/words 'sum' and 'calculation' 2+2=4 is is automatically both of those things.

I will empathise again: the sources of the false flag events that occurred as pretexts of war within the article, by the logic being employed to penalise the false flag incident during the 1953 Iranian coup, should all be removed. None of the sources specifically call these events false flags! -- However, they of course should not be removed purely for that reason, as the modern usage of term clearly defines such events as false flags.

This really isn't a complicated issue, and I'm quite concerned that people would even argue against including the event. Either delete the whole article, as virtually none of the sources use the specific terminology/nomenclature 'false flag', or allow the information regarding the one carried out during the Iranian coup of 1953 to be reinstated.

Best wishes,

Darkone123 (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

It's really not hard to find sources that call the CIA operations in Iran "false flag operations" - Covert Action in the Cold War states "...undermine the Iranian communists through false flag attacks..." and the German Cyberwar also states "Eine andere 'False Flag Operation' war der Coup d'Etat im Iran im August 1953".

Nevertheless, even without these sources, use of a dictionary does not constitute OR via synthesis. Parsecboy (talk) 19:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your valuable input, Parsecboy. It's very much appreciated (and for the references, I'm always looking for when the term is used via authors). Those sources are both quite modern, and may (perhaps?) indirectly support my notion that older sources will not likely use the terminology/nomenclature 'false flag' to describe such events, due the the terms' meaning evolving over time, and, just as importantly, the fact that few journalists and scholars would have known that there was a specific term to describe the phenomenon as the meaning for the term evolved.

I will now argue that with Parsecboy's sources specifically referring to false flag operations being carried out during the 1953 Iranian coup de'tat, that a concise paragraph should be written to include as such in section 4.4. 'Cold War'.

Parsecboy, do you also believe this to be a solution to the problem? If so, I would love to hear input from yourself and others and perhaps start moving forward with the piece.

Thanks again for your aid in this discussion.

Kindest regards to all,

Darkone123 (talk) 21:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I lost track of this - I was busy last week and over the weekend. But yes, there should be a section on the Iranian coup. I actually think there needs to be some restructuring - the Reichstag fire is currently in a section for pretexts for war; like the Iranian coup, there was no war launched as a result. There should be a separate section for political false flag operations that includes both the Reichstag fire and the Iranian coup (and other examples where appropriate). Parsecboy (talk) 14:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Reichstag Fire refs

The refs for the Reichstag fire don't mention false flag. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:14, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

What's your point? They do mention the possibility that the Nazis set the fire to frame the communists, and applying a dictionary definition (or a thesaurus, for that matter) to an event does not constitute WP:SYNTH. Parsecboy (talk) 19:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Spanish American War

This is a conspiracy theory. It is WP:fringe history. Since there are plenty of actual "false flag" incidents, it is not necessary or helpful to add imaginary or potential incidents to the article. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Moreover, this was discussed as far back as 2008 and the consensus was to remove. (Something no one bothered to do) Capitalismojo (talk) 17:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it'd be useful to have another discussion to see if the same consensus exists? It is 6 years old at this point. It's not totally WP:fringe as it's the official viewpoint of the Cuban government. (Also don't see a consensus agreed in the archives). --Connelly90 12:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Does it improve the article to put a controversial CT in? I suspect not. It seems Orwellian to rely on Castro's government pronouncements as opposed to notable mainstream historians. Is it neccesary to illuminate the concept of "false flag"? No, we have plenty of legitimate examples. This is not a list of every "false flag" operation in recorded history. It is an encyclopedia article designed to explain the concept. This controversial conspiracy theory is not neccesary and does not improve the article in my opinion. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm playing Devil's Advocate slightly here as nobody seems to be engaging this in debate or discussion, and we can't really gain a consensus without one.

I agree there are quite clear reasons as to why the Cuban government would like to see a certain version of events, but there is a good argument that their acceptance of this alternative to the official story makes it more than a "fringe theory".

I think adding a few of these "controversial conspiracy theories" has the potential to add some value to the article, but only by restricting their inclusion to the more well-known or talked-about ones (Pearl Harbour, 9/11 etc) as opposed to turning it into, as you say, a list. These more "controversial" topics are the main reason people are looking at this article in the first place --Connelly90 15:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

You were going so well until you said Pearl Harbor. The explosion of the Maine is much more appropriate to this article because of the serious lack of evidence which allows so much conjecture. Pearl Harbor was truly an attack by the Japanese, so it does not qualify at all as false flag. The question of whether FDR led the Japanese to engage in a course of warfare is not a question of false flag. Conspiracy by one side resulting in an attack by the other side does not equal false flag.

The Maine blowing up in Havana harbor has a lot of false flag conjecture written about it, both historically and recently. It's entirely possible that an agent of the US government caused the explosion, though it is very doubtful. That's why I wanted to put that section into the article: so that the conjecture could be described and countered with the official version. Binksternet (talk) 17:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I have not done my own digging into Pearl Harbour, so I wouldn't know. I've only heard of it mentioned as a "false flag" in many discussions on the subject of such operations, so I included it here as an example of a controversial event. What I'm saying is that we take these suggested or suspected "false flags" and run them past WP:FRINGE; if there's enough debate on the subject from credible sources, then I think it would improve the article to mention the debate within it. If Pearl Harbour doesn't meet those criteria (and from what you've said, I suspect it wouldn't) then with what I'm suggesting, we don't include it. --Connelly90 09:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no source anywhere (reliable or otherwise) which refers to Pearl Harbor as a "false flag" operation. Thus we can not include it in this article. There is no consensus to include the conspiracy theory about the Maine in the article. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Sources for Maine in Havana Harbor exploded by American agent

Here are some useful sources describing the explosion of the Maine in the context of false flag operations. Binksternet (talk) 19:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Official US Navy position: Explosion was most likely spontaneous combustion of a coal bunker. Evidence of an external mine "remains thin". "Despite the best efforts of experts and historians in investigating this complex and technical subject, a definitive explanation for the destruction of Maine remains elusive."
• Hall, Anthony (2010). Earth Into Property: Colonization, Decolonization, and Capitalism. McGill-Queen's Native and Northern Series. Vol. 62. McGill-Queen's Press. p. 642. ISBN 0773531211. Like the Reichstag fire of 1933, the sinking of the Maine is widely seen as a classic false-flag operation... Page 547: "The intent of this classic false-flag operation was to whip up public hostility towards the designated enemy."
• Lynn Margulis says the Maine was likely a false-flag operation. Lynn Margulis: The Life and Legacy of a Scientific Rebel, page 160.
• Peter Dale Scott writes that the Maine is often portrayed as false-flag, but without solid evidence. American War Machine: Deep Politics...
• Popular author Andy Thomas writes that "some say it was a simple accident, others that it was sunk by Spain, and, of course, there is the popular view that the USA sank it itself as a pretext for war. Yet again, confusing evidence supports more than one of the possibilities, which remain unsettled to this day..."
• Expansionism: Its Effects on Cuba's Independence, page 134: US officials blame an external mine, Cuban officials blame accidental internal explosion, then finally Spanish journalists blame the US itself, blowing up the Maine as a pretext for war.
• Professor Thomas E. Morrissey writes that, since 1959, popular sentiment in Cuba is that "the United States intentionally blew up the Maine to justify its intervention..." This position is stated in Cuban textbooks. (Donegan and the Splendid Little War, page 416.)
• The Yellow Kids, page 172: "Another vein of speculation, seldom argued in print but believed by many in both Cuba and the United States, is that William Randolph Hearst was somehow the instigator of a plot to blow up the Maine."
• William A. Chanler was said to be the cause of the explosion, according to one conspiracy theory which says Chanler acted after a suggestion by Teddy Roosevelt. Another theory was that some US citizen such as Hearst planned the explosion. Historian Hugh Thomas writes of this false flag speculation in Cuba, Or, The Pursuit of Freedom, page 364.
• In 1960 after the the La Coubre explosion, Fidel Castro said that the US had caused the explosion as a pretext for war, just as they had in the case of the Maine explosion. See The Brilliant Disaster, page 53.
• The major Communist Cuban newspaper Granma says that the US blew up the Maine on purpose. See Tom Miller in "Remember the Maine?", a chapter in Cuba: True Stories.
• Mark Falcoff writes in A Culture of Its Own: Taking Latin America Seriously, page 195, that "many Spanish and Cuban historians still maintain—that the United States purposely exploded its own battleship Maine to provide an excuse for intervention."
• Cuban politician and former director of the national library Eliades Acosta claims that "powerful economic interests" in the United States were probably responsible not only for the sinking of the Maine but for the assassination of three 19th-century U.S. presidents, beginning with Abraham Lincoln.
  • Rohter, Larry (February 14, 1998). "Havana Journal; Remember the Maine? Cubans See an American Plot Continuing to This Day". New York Times.

Wonderful stuff. Drinks deeply of the waters of debunked conspiracy theory and Castro regime propaganda. Twofer! Capitalismojo (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Include text about the Maine explosion?

The consensus of this RFC shows a large desire to not include the explosion of the USS Maine in this article and the article largely only includes veritably true false flag operations. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 18:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should this article briefly describe the various published points of view about what caused the explosion of the USS Maine in Havana? Binksternet (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Survey

• Support something like this version, perhaps with more or less text. (There is a lot more that can be added.) The sources in the section above show the prevalence of the explosion being explained by some people as a false flag operation, and the degree of uncertainty found in the official conclusion. Binksternet (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose This is an article about "false flag" attacks. There are plenty of actual such things without adding events that were not such events. It does not help or add clarity to this article. Indeed this is considered fringe and conspiracy theory. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose For a couple of reasons.

As Capitalismojo has kindly listed a number of sources for the theory that the Maine explosion was a False Flag operation, it can be seen that they fall into one of two categories:

Post-1959 Cuban theories advanced by an anti-US government, or sources ultimately based on those theories. Any support for these as reliable sources would have to explain why Cuban governments prior to Castro made no such assertions or show that they exist/

The remaining sources are weasel-worded "people say" statements. With no basis for what people say these are worthless. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - basically per Capitalismojo - this article should include things that were actual false flag operations (like the Gleiwitz incident), not incidents that have fairly conclusively been proved to have been something else (an accident, malfunctioning radar equipment, whatever). On that basis, I think the Gulf of Tonkin incident needs to be removed also, along with the fact that whoever calls it a false flag operation apparently doesn't know what a false flag operation means (which is to say, lying about a false report of a torpedo boat attack is not the same thing as blowing up your own ship and pretending it was the North Vietnamese). At some point, we have to make the right editorial judgement and conclude that though plenty of conspiracy-theorists say that something was a false flag operation, they are wrong and we shouldn't be propagating false information. Parsecboy (talk) 13:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

My point is that here is where we tell the reader why the false information is false. The bad information is out there, and Wikipedia needs to address it rather than hope it goes away. Binksternet (talk) 14:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The problem is, that's not how it's being treated in the article - they're being presented as basically equal viewpoints when they are clearly not. Being included in the main section of the list (as opposed to a separate "alleged/conspiracy theory/etc." section) doesn't help either. Parsecboy (talk) 13:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. At best it's the Streisand effect, at worst it's Fringe. Andrew³²⁷ 12:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
• NOppose as per Capitalismojo and Parsecboy. 94.193.139.22 (talk) 13:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Maybe in a dedicated section titled "false false flags" (not a real suggestion). Not in the form linked above though and probably not needed at all. AIRcorn (talk) 09:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Sounds a bit like a conspiracy theory.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:58, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support per Binksternet. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Despite the official US government stance that the explosion was accidental, the idea is still "widely" held that it was caused by an American agent. Binksternet (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd be careful using that book to support your claim - it appears to be filled with 9/11 "truther" nonsense, conspiracy theories about the non-involvement of the US and UK in the Rwandan Genocide, and other such garbage. Parsecboy (talk) 18:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
    • And yet the author is an academic, and the publisher is the respected McGill-Queen's University Press. So the unlikely contents of the book are acceptably reliable for the statements made. Binksternet (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Neither of those facts mean that Anthony James Hall isn't a nutjob 9/11 truther, whose views are, at least in this area, biased garbage. Please note that his article notes he has been described as a conspiracy theorist. And what's more, this isn't even his area of expertise; if you want to cite Hall on globalization, fine (though even still do so with care) but he is in no way an expert on why Maine sank or even whether conspiracy theories about her loss are "widely" held. Parsecboy (talk) 19:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
        • I agree with Binksternet's assertion. It would appear that the consensus wants to keep this article focused on demonstrably true false flag operations ignoring the multitude of whackadoodle claims. Is there a good place to mention and dismiss those claims, or does that lean too far to the fringe? One review says Hall is a conspiracy nut and that ought to be mentioned. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
          • Which one, that Hall is an academic and his book was published by a reputable press and is therefore a good source? Or that he is a credible authority on whether the sinking of Maine was a false flag operation (or that it is "widely perceived" as one)? I'd only agree to the latter in limited cases (and this isn't one of them) and I'd reject the second outright. If one buys into the truther garbage, one has lost all credibility as far as other conspiracy issues are concerned. And frankly, it calls his serious scholarship into question as well - much like David Irving's The Mare's Nest, long the definitive work on Germany's V-weapons programs during WWII, which has since been tarnished by his later Holocaust denial and other, miscellaneous stupidity. For what it's worth, the fact that Hall has been called a conspiracy theorist is included in his article.
          • I don't think we need a section on conspiracy theories, since they are by definition, fringe theories, and presenting them, even if only to discredit them, probably gives them undue weight. Parsecboy (talk) 00:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
            • With how infowars and the crazies throw this term around, I think it makes more sense to address and dismiss than to categorically ignore. I think the consensus is wrong on this, especially considering issues like the sinking of the Maine have been debunked. Have fun fighting the vandals and POV pushers because I'm bailing on this article. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
              • Do you honestly think that having a section that explicitly debunks the conspiracy theories will make the crazies any less likely to try to push their POV? And what's worse about this line of argument is that Binksternet's version doesn't even reject them. The assertion that the sinking was an act of a US agent (and that US economic interests were responsible for assassinating Abraham Lincoln and 2 other presidents) is presented uncritically, as if it has equal weight with Rickover's investigation. Not to mention that using Hall's conspiracy-filled garbage to support the assertion that the false flag theory is "widely held" is completely unacceptable.
              • The central issue here is WP:VALID, which states that "Conspiracy theories...should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit them where including them would unduly legitimize them..." Parsecboy (talk) 12:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

It's been a month since discussion has petered out - I think we can safely call this a fairly firm consensus to exclude the sinking of Maine from the article. Parsecboy (talk) 18:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Entry name

Would it be reasonable to move this entry to False flag operation? It's not about the use of the term false flag. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

MH-17

It looks like MH-17 disaster could be a false flag. Perhaps it should be added to this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.2.9.254 (talk) 23:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

You have sources that document this as the pervasive view in mainstream media and scholarship? Otherwise, you are abusing this talkpage as a forum for personal points of view. Acroterion (talk) 15:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I have sources that document this is as one of the views, it may not be the mainstream view. If it is truly a false flag then it will not be the mainstream view since the people who created the event are also the ones controlling most of the media. Anyway, here are my sources:[7][8][9] If it is ok with you I would like to add some information about MH-17 to the main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.210.54.92 (talk) 22:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion here can't be justified by the circular reason prevalent among such theories : it needs to be substantial consensus among mainstream academic historical sources. Acroterion (talk) 22:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

These are far from mainstream sources. Perhaps you could try adding this info on the main entry at Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, which appears to be monitored by many with detailed knowledge, and see what luck you have. Anything in an entry for Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 in this WP entry for False flag operations should reflect the consensus established there. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I would advise treading with care at the main article, which has been the subject of overt efforts by nationalist partisans to skew the content away from mainstream reports. Acroterion (talk) 22:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Mainstream reports = Western propaganda. And the fact that you won't allow reports other than mainstream ones shows how corrupt and defunct Wikipedia is, and should show the world not the trust this western wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:470:6CC2:0:0:0:1337:C0DE (talk) 09:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Acroterion's defense of so-called "mainstream" views is deeply troubling: referencing a "mainstream" viewpoint should not be a substitute for critical thinking nor an excuse for censorship. For example, there are far more published references to 9/11 as a possible inside job (i.e. a false flag) than the conspiracies about the FSB appartment bombings. Yet we see the latter on this page and not the former. I also note that a published, verifiable source is no longer sufficient for Wikipedia - now it must be a "mainstream" view. I will label this the "Phlogiston Rule" considering that fantasy was once a mainstream view, just like WMDs in Iraq. "Mainstream media" is now a term of derision, methinks that Wikipedia is moving into the realm of irrelevancy, like other mainstream media. I'll not bother with this site ever again. -- 20:07, 29 November 2014 79.65.157.98

Your phrasing "published, verifiable source" left out the word "reliable"... -- AnonMoos (talk) 13:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Good point — "mainstream" has no correlation with "reliability". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.157.89 (talk) 00:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)