Talk:Sydney Hilton Hotel bombing

message: When I first came across this article I just thought it was a little light.  What makes the Hilton Bombing interesting is the fact that the security forces possibly/probably were responsible for it.  Regardless of what you think about the likelyhood of this, there are certainly many people that think that it is likely (including the NSW parliament!), and many serious commentaries on it.
I have worked on other contentious articles.  Generally people carefully and sensitively edit each others work point by point until the result is better than any one person could produce.
But this is different.  Rather than try to improve the article, user:Ambi and user:Hadal just arrogantly delete the work.  They do not want to improve the article, they just want to suppress information.  I have never seen such behaviour on a community project.
Anyway, I will improve the article as time permits.  Hadal is right that we need more authoratative references, and these will have to come from non-web sources.  Might search the Sydney Morning Herald archive (for a fee).  
But I will not be bullied into just giving up!  If necessary we will need to review Ambil's Admin rights.  Her "crusade against bias" actually has quite an ugly feel to it if you look at some of her other edits.
Aberglas 08:50, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Might search the Sydney Morning Herald archive (for a fee).  -- You don't need to do that. Many of us already have free access to Factiva, which lets us search all major newspapers. - Mark 15:09, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Initial Reaction by aberglas

message: A couple of points:
# Agree about the name change. There most certainly has been more than one Hilton bombing in history, for example Taba, Egypt two weeks ago; London Hilton in 1975; and no doubt others.
# We probably should make a list of terrorist incidents in Australia or something similar, to help put paid to this persistent meme that the Hilton bombing was Australia's first act of terrorism. Some items to include (mostly from ):
#* Some definitions might include the "Rum Rebellion" coup d'état against Bligh in 1808
#* Attempted assassination of Duke of Edinburgh in 1868, by a Fenian called O'Farrell.
#* Series of arson attacks in Sydney in 1916, allegedly part of an anti-war campaign by the Wobblies. (Several Wobblies were convicted, but on the other hand, it has been claimed they were framed. But then on the gripping hand, someone always claims the bombers were framed...)
#* Assassination of a South Australian MP in 1921
#* Wounding and attempted assassination of Arthur Calwell in June 1965
#* 1971 Department of Labour and National Service in Perth bombed by anti-conscription activists
#* April 1972 Australian National Socialist Party bombed Communist Party offices in Brisbane
#* September 1972, series of bombing attacks on Yugoslavia travel aganecies and consulates, by Croatian separatists (as part of a worldwide campaign from January to September 1972, resuming 1976-1980)
#* 1974 Australian National Socialist Party firebombed left wing bookstore in Brisbane
#* 1975 letter bombs sent to Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen and Malcolm Fraser
#* 1976, eco-terrorist attack on Bunbury woodchipping plant in West Australia, uses the largest unlawful explosive device ever used in Australia. TTBMK this is the only eco-terrorist/eco-guerilla attack in Australia which used explosives, although arson and other attacks on machinery and facilities are too numerous to list separately.
#* (September and October 1977 - numerous low level (harrassament) attacks against Indian diplomats and trade organisations, by Ananda Marga)
#* February 1978, the Hilton bombing
#* December 1980, Turkish Consul-General assassinated in Sydney by Armenians
#* December 1982, Israeli consulate in Sydney destroyed by a bomb
#* Russell Street Police Station bombing in March 1986 was a criminal act rather a terrorist act, but maybe it deserves a special mention.
#* 1984 National Action (a splinter group of defunct Australian National Socialist Party) firebombed home of an anti-apartheid activist
#* November 1986, bomb exploded in basement of Turkish consulate in Melbourne, whilst being armed by the bomber
#* 1987-1989 National Action firebombed several leftist bookstores
#* 1988, several explosive devices found in/near South African facilities around Canberra, although none exploded
#* January 1989, National Action did drive by shooting of home of an African National Congress representative.
#* 1989 Australian Nationalists Movement firebombed Asian businesses in Perth, and murdered a person whom they believed was a Special Branch informer.
#* June 1995, French consulate in Perth firebombed
#* February 2004, Australian Nationalists Movement members firebombed Asian businesses in Perth
#* July 2004, Australian Nationalists Movement allegedly conspired to assassinate the Attorney-General of West Australia.
Securiger 15:32, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: An old list of terrorist events? (Revert war continues below)

message: Please stop the revert war, and find a compromise on the talk page about the structure of the article before carrying on editing the article. I propose the following structure:
 
*Background (historical and geopolitical context of the Commonwealth meeting and political context in Australia at the time of the bombing)
*The bombing (the bombing itself, the deceased, the injured, emergency services)
*Reaction to the bombing (press releases directly after the bombing, particular security measures(?), direct domestic repercussions)
*Investigation (official investigation, eyewitness accounts (?), suspects, government commission?, trial, convicted people?) 
*Speculation and conspiracy theories (anything which did not lead to an official investigation, cite your sources)
*Political effects (short-term, long-term effects?, political significance) 
*See also 
*External links
Any comments? --Edcolins 17:47, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
:Suits me fine, if you're willing to write it. This has been needing some serious attention for a while - the current version is execrable, but the rewrite is much, much worse. Something along those lines would be perfect - I'd have done it myself, but I'm particularly short of time at the moment. Ambi 01:17, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Please stop the revert war

message: As noone has been editing the temp page for a while and no resolution seems likely via that method, I have copied what is on the temp page to the article page and unlocked the article. Do whatever needs to be done to make it NPOV. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:13, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems rather strange, seeing as you said only twelve hours ago that this would not be a helpful step. Ambi 09:16, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, I'm sick of the dispute and have changed my mind. How's that for brutal honesty? - Ta bu shi da yu 01:39, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: The section already describes the controversy in two paragraphs, and links to a fuller exposition of the theory.  What more do you want? Jayjg (talk) 16:19, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: What you call "enumeration of the actual evidence" others would likely view as "building a case", particularly as you haven't provided counter-arguments, and your case is filled with POV and unsubstantiated statements.  The reader can look at the summary, then go to the link if they want to "make up their own mind". Jayjg (talk) 09:38, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page unprotected 

message: No mention is made of the two incidents in the lead up to the bombing. Is there some editorial reason for this? Briefly, ON September 15, 1977 the military attache at the Indian Embassy Colonel Singh and his wife were attacked in Canberra. Just over a month later an Air India employee in Melbourne was stabbed.
In both cases, the perpetrator was a member of the Ananda Marga. These are convictions for which AM members served time and they occurred a very short time before the bombing, yet the article gives no mention of these. Clearly, AM had issues with Indian government of the day. Of course the involvement of AM members does not justify the claim that AM is responsible for these attacks, but it does inform on the issue. cf news.com.au article written under the 30 year rule releasing cabinet documents.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddball (talk • contribs) 20:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prelude to the bombing 

message: Suggest this section is shortened by incorporating revelant material and citing it, and by removing the less notable or reliable links.  Also, there appears to be a bias towards left-wing sources in this section. Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'll do some more on this tomorrow.  Are you happy with the citations?  13:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's much better - well done - but might benefit from a few more. Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

text: PS. I'm not really sure how reference links can be POV (as opposed to the body of the article).  I don't think just referencing an article endorses it as nuetral, just relevant.  Which links do you specifically not like?  The only key ones for me are Hansard, the Conspiracy Doco, The Green Left one, and Wilson's Almanac, the latter two expand on the story.  If you or others have extra articles please include them.13:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 3 non-neutral links (Left-aligned): Communist Party Guardian, Green Left, (Tim Anderson). You're better off including and citing the relevant material than putting lots of external links in. See WP:EL Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

text: It's better - still think some of the links could be used as references instead.  "Further reading" section for published works, while "External links" is for internet links. Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Further reading

message: Some claim that Griffith did testify to some extent at the inquest.  If that is true then the article needs to be corrected, and some of the testomony added.  If anyone has access to the inquest transcripts etc. that would be excelent (eg. Lexus Nexus) Below is an extract from an unreliable source (http://members.tripod.com/~Hilton_Bombing/bombhilton.html)
:"At the Hilton bombing inquest Griffith alleged that the private secretary of an unnamed Australian senator told him that he had spoken to an ASIO agent who had said ASIO were involved in the bombing. He said an army bomb disposal vehicle was waiting in the city at the time of the explosion (12.40 am) and Special Branch were observing the hotel from nearby, as part of a prearranged action.
:"Griffith also gave evidence suggesting that even the then Prime Minister of Australia, Malcolm Fraser, may have known about the bungled attempt.
:"He also said that a man called William Reeve-Parker had told him that an army officer had admitted planting the bomb by switching rubbish bins 24 hours earlier. A statutory declaration by Reeve-Parker was shown at the Hilton bombing Coroner's inquest.
:"A Special Branch officer told Griffiths that his colleagues were observing the Hilton when the bomb went off and had tried to warn the police who were guarding the hotel on regular duty with a phone call. Griffiths said that he inferred the warning call had been an "attempt to save our lives," but that it also revealed security force involvement in the bombing. A police switchboard operator's notebook confirmed the fact that a call was received."
(I have added a reference to the site's Burely letter because 1. it is referenced in Hansard and 2. it agrees with Burley's video taped evidence on the Conspiricy documentary.  So it is backed up by very credible references.)
unsigned comment added by 121.45.248.200 (talk) 02:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  References to the inquest 

message: (Wilsons)
Less than three weeks after the Hilton bombing, Richard John Seary began meditation classes at the Sydney Ananda Marga centre.
On the afternoon of June 15, 1978, Seary contacted Detective Senior Constable Jan Krawczyk of NSW Police Special Branch. They already knew each other. Krawczyk had recruited him to infiltrate Ananda Marga. On this day, Seary told his masters in the NSW Police Special Branch that three Ananda Margis, Alister, Dunn and Anderson, were going out that night on a bombing mission. The target was to be Robert Cameron, leader of the National Front, a right-wing group, who lived in the Sydney suburb of Yagoona.
on the back seat of Seary's car was found a bag containing a bomb.
Anderson was arrested about an hour later by none other than Detective Sergeant Roger Rogerson.
The first trial ran from February 19, 1979 till March, when it resulted in a hung (undecided) jury. The second trial ran from July to August of that year, resulting in the convictions of the three for conspiracy to murder Cameron. All three were sentenced to 16 years jail, making it the most expensive night of graffiti in Australian history.
On February 1, 1982, after the three young men had now rotted in some of the heaviest prisons in Australia for two and a half years, Eric Mountier, a juror in the second trial, came forward and said that he believed the Yagoona case trial had been unfair and overwhelmingly prejudiced by the fact that during it, Richard Seary claimed that Dunn had confessed to him that he was the Hilton bomber. 
Justice Murphy of the High Court called Richard John Seary "the most unreliable person ever presented as the principal prosecution witness on a charge of serious crime".  The High Court, however, dismissed the appeal on February 13, 1984
By May 15 the following year, 1985, after a lengthy investigation of the Yagoona affair, Justice Wood pardoned the men and they walked free from jail.
 
Det. Serg. Aarne Tees reopened the Hilton bombing investigation. Two months later, and three years after he had walked free, on May 30, 1989, Tim Anderson woke up at his home in the early hours of the morning to a familiar face. It was Aarne Tees. 
Raymond John Denning (long time crim) had told the cops that when they were both in Parklea Prison years earlier, Anderson had told him that he (Anderson) had said "I did the Hilton".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuntable (talk • contribs) 04:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ananda Marga Notes 

message: Why doesn't he have his own page in Wikipedia?  It is like he has been airbrushed from history. I'm not usaully one to believe in conspiracy theories but it is almost like there is a conspiracy to erase his past.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.76.230 (talk) 12:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have linked to Anderson's page.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tim Anderson 

message: This article states "Anderson was then re-arrested for the Sydney Hilton bombing, but this time he was acquitted in 1991 after the evidence of the main prosecution witness, Evan Pederick, was completely rejected by the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal.[1]"
This is completely untrue.  This is why I question if there is a pro Anderson conspiracy afoot here.  
From Regina v Evan Dunstan  Pederick  [1996] NSWSC 623 (17 December 1996) The Court of Criminal Appeal nevertheless refused to hold that Anderson's verdicts of guilty were unsafe and unsatisfactory, in the sense that the jury ought to have had a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. Instead, it held that the trial had miscarried by reason of the way in which the Crown had conducted it. However, instead of ordering a new trial, the Court exercised its discretion to enter a judgment of acquittal.
The Anderson judgement is not online, but can be found at R v Anderson (1991) 53 A Crim R 421
The evidence of Pederick was not "completely rejected" as the article states. The Court refused to hold that Anderson's verdicts of guilty were unsafe and unsatisfactory.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.76.230 (talk) 13:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anderson Appeal 

message: Is this really the correct word? AFAIK the Commonwealth can't "veto" a state government inquiry. They can decide not to cooperate or not hold their own inquiry but not veto one. Tigerman2005 (talk) 01:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commonwealth Govt veto? 

message: I reorganized it a bit to make it cleaner.  Grouped the summary info at the top, then the conspiracy, and finally the Amanda Marga angle which I think makes more sense once people understand the conspiracy.
The Amanda Marga section is still a bit confused and could do with a clean up if someone has time.Tuntable (talk) 04:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate your efforts and it looks good but content wise it's a dog's breakfast. There is a small summary of what happened followed by a massive section for the conspiracy angle (these are alleged events not accepted facts) and then a bizarre profile at the end. I also think the investigation/trial part needs to go before the conspiracy section. Also if the conspiracy section is going to rely on the Commission of inquiry as a source some page numbers or at least section numbers would be useful. On two occasions the article states that Seary's evidence was discredited. I eventually found in the citation that the discrediting was done by two high court justices. Perhaps we can add that - seems important to note to me, others may disagree. Anyway personally I'd like to see the article with an order something like (after the lede): Background (explanation of Hilton being location for CHOGM and discussion of threats against Indian PM - Bombing (a run through of the bombing itself strictly dealing with the facts. Garbage truck collects bin, bomb goes off, police respond, damage caused - investigation/trial (already in place however some post-trial events relating to Tim Anderson's eventual acquittal could be moved so a more chronological order flows) - Alleged conspiracy/subsequent inquiries (I'd be loathe to use conspiracy but the saga with Anderson's retrial, the many inquiries into the event plus some of the accusations of cover-up/ignoring of evidence that ran counter to the police version of events etc could sit here - Aftermath (or some better word!) to cover outcomes from the event. Just some thoughts anyway. Tigerman2005 (talk) 00:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is a dog's breakfast.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganized 

message: I don't think we need the profile of Richard Seary.  It seems a bit odd.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Richard Seary 

message: This article is grossly biased in favour of fringe conspiracy theories, for which there has never been any real evidence. Intelligent Mr Toad 2 (talk) 03:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the evidence is enumerated in the article.  All referenced.  Much of it in Hansard.  Or the Conspiracy video which shows people giving their evidence. The article carefully does not reach a conclusion in Wikipedia voice, but the evidence is pretty overwhelming, even if it differs from some editor's world view.Tuntable (talk) 09:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think after Anderson's conviction was overturned all we have are theories, but the sources used are not good. Hansard is a primary source and shouldn't be used as extensively as it is. There is a new book out about the bombing which could be used for adding more information.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is some particular piece of evidence that you think is incorrect then please discuss it here.  But I think it is all pretty rock solid.  And remember, the NSW parliament unanimously voted for an inquiry due to concerns -- so this is not some fringe theory. 203.45.176.47 (talk) 00:46, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW The strongest evidence is simply the fact that a sizable bomb was placed in a garbage bin right in front of police officers.  No terrorist could have done that without being seen.  And we now know it was placed the night before, and garbage men were prevented from emptying the bin.203.45.176.47 (talk) 00:46, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias

message: In the "Bombing" section, the first name one of the garbage collectors is given as "William", but on the picture of the plaque it says "Arthur".
Which is it?
HandsomeFella (talk) 09:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Favell's first name 

message: The extensive use of Alister's book in this section is questionable and in my opinion shows a bias. It wouldn't surprise me if Alister wrote this section himself. 
Anyone who thinks the Margis are innocent victims should check out the two new books on the subject: Who Bombed the Hilton? by Rachel Landers, and The Hilton Bombing, by Imre Salusinszky. Margi activities are shown pretty clearly, especially the actions of one particular Margi, Abhiik Kumar, who deserves a mention in this article. I hope to be writing it up soon.  Sardaka (talk) 09:34, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Trials and inquiries

message: I have heard Salusinszky say that there "is not a shred of evidence" supporting conspiracy theories.  He apparently then addresses (on just two pages?) the evidence a bit, which is a direct contradiction.  I do not know and it is not Wikipedia's place to determine what really happened.  It is possible that there are alternative explanations to the evidence that convinced the NSW parliament to call for an inquiry.  That evidence might well be flawed, but most certainly exists, and is well beyond a "shred".  
A book that provided a detailed analysis and alternative theory would be of interest, but that is not what this book appears to do. But for Salusinszky to suggest that not a shred of evidence exists makes him either an extremely poor researcher or a blatant liar, and thus a poor choice of reference for Wikipedia.  I leave it there for "balance", but the contradiction needs to be made clear.  Tuntable (talk) 23:30, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Salusinszky and Landers 

message: In
https://independentaustralia.net/life/life-display/who-bombed-the-hilton-part-1-the-bomb-and-the-bin-,11191
John Jiggens stated
   At the Hilton trial, Phillip Morris, the controller of the Sydney Council cleaning department, testified that there were several garbage collection shifts scheduled for that weekend in February 1978: one about 12:40 am Saturday morning, which was the last collection not waved away, one about 6 am Saturday, the next at 2.30pm on Saturday afternoon, and a third at 6 am on Sunday morning.
    Keith Snashall, who drove the 6 am rubbish collection, the truck previous to Ebb’s, was too sick to give evidence at the Hilton bombing trial. Instead, his evidence to the 1982 Hilton inquest was read at the trial, which confirmed that he was waved on.
    Neville Porter drove the previous garbage truck to Shashall’s, the 2.30 pm collection on Saturday afternoon. He testified that his truck was waved away from the bin outside the Hilton by the police. His shift could see the bin near the escalator and it looked full. Rubbish was protruding from the top and a newspaper was sticking out.
This is important as it backs up the testimony of Bill Ebb.  However, I think it wants a better reference before inclusion.  I would guess that the trial was Anderson's second trial.  If anyone has access to Lexus Nexus etc. and can find that reference please add it to the article or just to here.  Tuntable (talk) 05:32, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better Reference wanted for Philip Morris and other's testimony 

message: Have added templates for multiple issues as this article really needs major cleanup work. In particular it needs a neutral overview of what happened, a chronological structure, avoid undue weight on the conspiracy question. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The tags are there to encourage editors to make constructive edits, add extra information, etc. If you think a section is weak because it contains vague statements of opinion with no detail, you can add tags for that to encourage editors to do that work too. Two editors have now argued that the article does not meet community standards, so removing the tags would be a mistake which I would revert unless there is a consensus here that they are unnecessary. I have absolutely no opinion on whether there was a conspiracy or not and know nothing about the details of this case, so am not going to do the edits; I'm here as a Wikipedia editor who noticed a very weirdly organised and confusing article, which dives into arguments for a conspiracy theory before giving a neutral account of what we know happened and which has sections heavily reliant on primary sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other issues 

message: Suppose, for the sake of argument, the conspiracy accusation was true.  Surely that would be very, very important an interesting.  Nutters let of bombs all the time, not so interesting.  But if it was true that it was ASIO and Police Special Branch that made the bomb then I think that it is very obvious that that would be very interesting indeed.
From that I think it follows that a discussion of whether the conspiracy is true or not is central to the article.  It is why I bother to edit it.
When people ask for "balance" they are thinking that they do not personally think the conspiracy is likely, and want to see credible sources that refute it.  If such sources exist I personally would be very interested to see them.  But I do not think they do, because the conspiracy is in fact true.
The section "Arguments against a conspiricy" is, to my mind, very weak.  Vague statements of opinion with no detail.  Quite different from the sharp Accusations section.  It is there for "balance".  If somebody would like to read those sources and improve this section that would be great.  I personally do not want to do that because I strongly suspect that the sources are garbage.
So unless someone has some constructive edits that they wish to make, extra information they wish to supply etc. then I will remove the Issues tag in a few days time. Tuntable (talk) 23:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The tags are there to encourage editors to make constructive edits, add extra information, etc. If you think a section is weak because it contains vague statements of opinion with no detail, you can add tags for that to encourage editors to do that work too. Two editors have now argued that the article does not meet community standards, so removing the tags would be a mistake which I would revert unless there is a consensus here that they are unnecessary. I have absolutely no opinion on whether there was a conspiracy or not and know nothing about the details of this case, so am not going to do the edits; I'm here as a Wikipedia editor who noticed a very weirdly organised and confusing article, which dives into arguments for a conspiracy theory before giving a neutral account of what we know happened and which has sections heavily reliant on primary sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Conspiracy Section overly Prominent

message: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/feb/13/hilton-hotel-bombing-surviving-officer-vows-to-find-the-bastards-who-did-it
The 1979 Asio Act allowed the government to “close the door” on anyone investigating any crime committed by the secret service, Griffiths said.
“As a result of that we can’t get the people before the courts who are responsible for the bombing,” he told the crowd. “I appeal to everyone who has the power and the authority to look into the matter again and I hope they’ll take me seriously.”
Also https://www.afp.gov.au/news-media/platypus/remembering-hilton
Has a 1978 video of Griffiths plus commisioner saying "things have changed in 40 years", nicely ambiguous acknowledgement. Tuntable (talk) 00:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Todo Griffiths latest comments 

message: They were removed recently, for reasons that are unclear.  I do not have a strong opinion of them, maybe they could be condensed.  But it requires discussion here rather than just doing it.  So I put them back, at least for now.
I also put back the photo of the clean up.  Not the greatest photo, but it does serve to make the event more real.
I also split the trials section into two, as it was too big and a bit confusing that there were in fact two distinct trials. Tuntable (talk) 08:26, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed.  The qualification "According to Paul Alister's later assertions" is important.  I think the assertions are in fact probably true, and it would be interesting to go over the findings of the appeal to confirm them. Tuntable (talk) 03:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Alistairs assertions 

message: The Arguments against conspiracy section has had much of its content removed for no justifiable reason. I have restored it as it was in the interests of objectivity. It is a necessary counterbalance to the arguments in favour. I reiterate that the arguments against section draws on two well-researched, well-regarded books by very reputable authors. This gives it substantial weight. Such use of reputable secondary sources is entirely in line with Wikipedia principles. 
Someone else has now decided, again with no explanation or justification, to remove both the for and against a conspiracy sections. This makes the article uninformative and lacking in balance. I have restored both sections to strengthen the article.UncleTurner (talk) 07:03, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguments for and against a conspiracy 

message: A few months ago, someone has blanked the article to try to get rid of multiple issues, including undue weight to conspiracies and controversies. A few days after that, someone else has restored most of the article that was deleted. Can anyone explain why?202.169.23.60 (talk) 01:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blanking reverted 

message: I am certain that Terry Griffiths, the cop, had a Wikipedia article but instead I get directed to this article?
So what happened to his article. 49.3.72.79 (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is the Terry Griffiths article