 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | This article contains a translation of Martin Šmíd from cs.wikipedia. |
Conspiracy edit
Pasting my response to another user's edits about the conspiracy theory.
Let me address your points: "I see no evidence that source is unreliable" - I do, and I am extremely surprised you don't. Cibulka is a conspiracy theorist with gems such as "we must fight against the criminal neo-marx-leninist satanic structures" on his site (http://www.cibulka.net/petr/index.php). He advocates the use of "psychotronic training" and "sideric pendulums" to become "all-seeing". His "NECENZUROVANE NOVINY" was an outlet for his and his colleagues' fringe theories.
"Also supported by Sebestyen's book" - this I find very peculiar. Sebestyen supposedly claims that "evidence which established the conspiracy as genuine... was provided later in a commission". How is that possible when that very same inquiry report is used as a source elsewhere in the article, but actually states the exact opposite? Not to mention the discrepancy in the (previous) version of the article which devoted two huge paragraphs to the supposed conspiracy, yet retained a sourced statement directly contradicting it in a following paragraph.
Reliable, well respected, NPOV sources (e.g. Czech TV, parliamentary report) offer no support for this particular conspiracy. The one source which seems to support it also appears to grossly misinterpret the parliamentary findings (also linked in the article). As such I don't see the reasons for the inclusion of a fringe, crackpot and above all unsourced "theory". 89.176.87.169 (talk) 06:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.176.87.169 (talk)