Talk:Crisis actor

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Why the dispute tag ?

The article is tagged for disputed neutrality yet there is no discussion? For what it is worth, it seems a fair description of its topic today and the given example is referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jszigeti (talk • contribs) 13:29, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Israeli government just officially admitted to using crisis actors in Avivim on September 1st, 2019, to "fool" Hezbollah to believe that Hezbollah's attack on an Israeli armored car there was successful. According to Israeli authorities, that is an official state use of crisis actors. But of course such an edit to the main page here would be reverted immediately, as my talk comment likely will be too. That is why the wikipedia disputes itself and cannot be trusted or taken seriously, and many folks will never ever donate on that very basis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montoya44 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about actors used in the context of training simulations, and the conspiracy theories about them. It's not about psychological warfare tactics used by military forces (e.g. the Israel Defense Forces) during armed conflicts. [1] -LuckyLouie (talk) 17:03, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It's an entirely relevant addition if conspiracy theories are also discussed so should incidents of proven actual conspiracy. No, I am not a conspiracy theorist and think it's an appalling group of thought, we're just arguing for neutrality here. Dr.EbrahimSaadawi (talk) 16:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crisis Actor video

Why does my edit with this video keep being reverted? What format should it be in? Maybe in external links section? http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8d0_1478018838 It's one of the few videos that demonstrates what crisis acting look like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.158.169.126 (talk) 17:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Several problems. Possibly the biggest is that it seems to be a video of a tv program, I can see a logo at times at the bottom. It doesn't seem to be an original video. And who says it's a video of a crisis actor? And looking at the links below the video, they certainly look like Clickbait. Doug Weller talk 17:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The logo says CAM06 and you can see the controls at the bottom and the timestamp in the upper right. It's a handheld recording of a CCTV monitor. As far as clickbait, I had to turn off my adblocker to see it. It's unfortunate, but that's part of their revenue model. It doesn't invalidate the video itself. If you say it does, then you also must invalidate dozens of mainstream publications that do the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.158.169.126 (talk) 18:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, this source is one that is based on user generated content, like Wikipedia, and another Admin and I agree it shouldn't be used, just as we don't use our own articles. Doug Weller talk 12:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like CCTV footage of a movie or television production. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:14, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This footage was released by the Iraqi Network Press. The location was visited and filmed by the AP and RT Arabic the next day and they reported several deaths from a car bomb. It has been reviewed by Bellingcat and you can read their findings at the link provided. I agree that the people in this video are crisis actors and this should be mentioned in the article. https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2016/11/04/remarkable-case-iraqi-car-bomb/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxlysle (talk • contribs) 03:35, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, WP doesn't help "break" stories. www.bellingcat.com isn't enough, we'd need a majority of the established mainstream media to identify that video as crisis actors conspiring to stage a false flag attack. In other words,WP:EXTRAORDINARY. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:23, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think this is an extraordinary claim. Bellingcat stories are cited in other articles such as MH17. Are they not evidence until they are mentioned by CNN or the BBC? In addition, the author of this article is well recognized and his work has appeared in many mainstream outlets including the NYTimes. I submitted the article to Snopes though. Will Snopes+Bellingcat be enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxlysle (talk • contribs) 19:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many newcomers are confused when they are told they need "reliable sources" for "extraordinary claims". On WP, we go by the definitions found in our guidelines reliable sources and extraordinary claims, rather than our own personal views about what a reliable source or extraordinary claim is. In short, yes, we need established mainstream sources like the BBC or CNN. I'd be interested to see how Snopes covers it, if they decide it's a notable enough rumor for them to address. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As to the merge....

I am not in principle opposed to merging, but I do think some distinction is to be made between an actual instance of a false flag and the conspiracy-theory assertions the concept of the crisis actor is typically associated with. E.g. Sandy Hook and the Boston Marathon bombing. Pandeist (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pandeist: You may want to comment in Talk:False flag#Proposed merge with Crisis actor. -Location (talk) 17:33, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe theory

IMO, we should probably restore material identifying the fringe use of the term crisis actor sourced to a the NYT article. A slightly copyedited version of it would better comply with WP:FRINGE to "affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea". - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@LuckyLouie: There was actually a discussion about this on a different talk page. I think it might have been FTN or RSN. If I recall correctly, the consensus was to make this page about the real occupation and move info about the conspiracy theories to a different page (or pages). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go:

Interestingly enough, it was you who swayed my opinion to supporting that path. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

True. A separate article about the fringe theory was my intent, but I could not find enough WP:FRIND sources to support a stand alone article. So here I am, call me Mr. flip flop. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added an about hat note to this article. I'm not 100% secure in the exact wording of it, so suggestions would be appreciated. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. The hat note points to false flag ...where there is no mention of the fringe conspiracy theory that crisis actors are conspiring as part of false flag operations. ~~And I'm not sure mention of it belongs there, either.~~ - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the discussions I linked to. If there's no info there, we can pull it from the older version of this page and add a section (I thought somebody already had, but if not, it's no big deal to fix). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see the new section at false flag. That works for me. More can be sourced for it, such as [2] and [3] if needed. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Modern media

Is the crisis actor also used in scripted interviews? - http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2018/02/21/shooting-survivor-quit-cnn-town-hall-refusing-ask-scripted-question/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.78.219.83 (talk) 13:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Breitbart is not a reliable source for claims of fact. Also, no. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:07, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy theories

NOTE: Cross posted from Talk:False flag#Time to revisit "crisis actor"
So what do you think of adding a line near the top that makes a statement based on the snopes source and wikilinks to this page? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to the emergence of new sources that explicitly describe the conspiracy theory and its origins, and per discussion at Talk:False flag#Time to revisit "crisis actor", I've added a new section. Feel free to adjust, correct, or expand. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This looks good. We actually edit conflicted on the article as I was trying to do the same thing, but I like yours better. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:31, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. Feel free to tweak. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm neck deep in geographic coordinate system transformations in C# right now, but when I get some time this afternoon, I'll read over it with my critical eye and see if anything needs adding, subtracting or changing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doonesbury got there first?

I vaguely recall that quite a few years ago there was a week of Doonesbury strips about what we would now call "crisis actors". Unfortunately I can't remember the date or context of these strips (possibly a news organisation had been caught using them), but this might be a useful addition to this article, if someone can find the strips in question and their context. Sorry not to be more helpful - it's just a thought. RomanSpa (talk) 03:49, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wag the Dog too if you're thinking of adding a popular culture section but you'll need secondary sources. Thing is, too, this is only in the conspiracy theory sense, not the real thing. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 04:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Undue Weight

Half of this article is about conspiracy theories, the focus of this page should be on actual information about crisis actors. The conspiracy information should not be the bulk of the article, it should be a small sub-section at most. Also what is a "professional conspiracy theorist" as mentioned in the article? Underneaththesun (talk) 07:08, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might make sense to have this page and Crisis actor (conspiracy theory). Both are notable. Conspiracists took something real, and then spun it off into thier own thing. Actual Crisis actors are kinda boring, so I can see why people haven't expanded the article. Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:42, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with a split. The conspiracey concept and the emergency drill concept are quite different. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's a fairly good case for a split, not because of undue weight, but because more sources discussing the conspiracy theory have arisen recently, so a split off article could stand on its own. It may even warrant a disambiguation page to distinguish the term as used in studies of international relations. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the conspiracy section is yet long enough to merit a split. It's only two paras, so not a huge amount of weight, and its better to err on the side of simplicity. If there was a conspiracy article, it'd have to duplicate some of the previous part anyway, as the term clearly passes from the real crisis actors into conspiracy terminology. I think, unless the conspiracy section becomes swollen, the better course of action for good weight distribution is ensuring the first section is sufficiently developed. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:02, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Empricially proven, documented cases?

Aside from disaster training, I'd be curious to know of any empirical proof of a conspiracy involving so-called crisis actors, that has not ultimately been debunked. "Scientific method:" perhaps not repeatable, but with empirical evidence, which unfortunately today precludes "proof" such as Photoshopped images, deepfakes, etc. and "one offs" e.g. individuals whose claims to abduction etc. have been disproven. 68.192.134.198 (talk) 10:27, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That does not seem to have any connection with improving the article, which is the goal of this page. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]