Q3:Should the article provide evidence supporting a conspiracy? (No.)Just going from start to finish:
A3: No. This article should not provide evidence supporting a conspiracy. This article has facts supporting a conspiracy missing!
This article represents the mainstream version of the events with clear supporting evidence. While it does often omit some details because they are seen by some editors as implying that some minor conspiracy theories may have some basis the article rightly excludes conspiracy theory speculation as it is unsupported in the mainstream media. The article has a section directing to conspiracy theories and this is sufficient and appropriate. If there are any points supported by the mainstream media but not included then bring it up with evidence and a reason why it should be included. Just because it is true is not a reason, it should be relevant and it should not include speculation on the implications provided by truth websites, this is what the various conspiracy articles are for. Claiming censorship and bad faith in your initial post will discourage anyone from listening to your suggestions so be civil and WP:AGF until replies give you reason not to but regardless, ALWAYS try to remain civil. If you want to be taken seriously when posting try to leave out uncivil rhetoric and present your case calmly.
"While it does often omit some details because they are seen by some editors as implying that some minor conspiracy theories may have some basis" -- ROFL, WHAT? So they're admitting that they omit details just because they imply that a conspiracy theory might be true. Wow.
"the article rightly excludes conspiracy theory speculation as it is unsupported in the mainstream media." -- ROFL, what? So wikipedia bases everything on the mainstream media? Since when is the mainstream media considered the truth? Like, I understand that the mainstream media is generally considered trust worthy, but wikipedia is censoring information because the mainstream media never mentions it. Wow.
"Just because it is true is not a reason [for it to be included in the article]" -- ROFL, WHAT? So wikipedia isn't about truth, it's about mainstream media? Wow. I didn't know they'd be so transparent with that kind of bias.
The first question in the FAQ is if the article is biased, and it says "No", and then goes on to explain how anything not mentioned by the mainstream media is excluded for fear of giving evidence for something that the authors don't want to give evidence for ("conspiracy" theories). El oh el.
