Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee 9/11 conspiracy theories was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning the 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Information.svg To view an explanation to the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question.

This is not a forum for general discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories.
Any such messages will be deleted.
News This article has been mentioned by a media organisation:

I believe Wikipedia left out another Wikipedia reference for this article on conspiracy theories[edit] Qui Tam Relator 20:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:CIRCULAR explains why we do not use Wikipedia as a source for content within Wikipedia. VQuakr (talk) 05:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Random unreliable sources[edit]

Why are editors to restoring content sourced to random blogs of non-professionals, and other unreliable sources? Q6 at the top of this page is being ignored. Such as:

  • Gordon Farrer, a tech editors blog
  • Charlie Brooks's (comedian) blog
  • Charlie Skelton's blog
  • Paul Zarembka's book THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF 9-11-2001:

Talk about ignoring Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Fringe theories.--Theamazo (talk) 20:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

That (Gordon Farrer) is an editor of the Sydney Morning Herald. It is a RS. It falls into WP:NEWSBLOG. Describing it as a blog subject to removal is entirely inappropriate. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
The second is not Charlie Brooks it is Charlie Brooker. Brooker is a columnist for the Guardian newspaper. Since the section is in "Media reaction" it is entirely correct for a columnist's reaction to be included. Guardian is generally regarded as RS. It is not a blog. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:31, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
It's a opinion piece. Opinion pieces are not published as part of the main print, so less of a 'media reaction', more of a personal 'journalist reaction'. Again, how Brooker's views on conspiracy theorists mindsets is relevant or reliable here evades me.--Theamazo (talk) 20:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree that it is opinion, but it is not Random unreliable sources. It is, in fact, properly sourced as Brooker's opinion to a RS (The Guardian). If you believe the Guardian is not RS for the ref you have the option of taking it to WP:RSN. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I do not understand why Zarembka's book is listed here. It is a collection of scholarly articles written by the members of Scholars for 911 Truth. Regardless of one's opinion about the 911 Truth Movement & the unofficial conspiracy theories, if a Wikipedia article on 9/11 conspiracy theories wants to cite the best academics/intellectuals who question the official 911 Commission Report, then Zarembka's book is a legitimate source. In full disclosure, I helped proofread that book -- that collection of essays by the leading intellectuals within the 911 Truth movement -- before its publication. However, I am not a member of the 911 Truth Movement.RushRhees (talk) 08:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
No problem with including this info, so long as it's made clear that this is merely the claims being levied by conspiracy theorists, and not serious arguments that have made it through a legitimate peer-review process. JoelWhy?(talk) 13:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Zarembka is fine as a source for what truthers think (although secondary sources are prefered). It is not, however, "a collection of scholarly articles". It is just a collection of truther writings. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
9/11 Truth Movement "intellectuals" is an oxymoron.--MONGO 11:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Original research?[edit]

I truly fail to understand why my edit is deemed OR. It is a strictly factual matter that polling established that support for military action was already there before 9/11. That is highly relevant given that the basis for many conspiracies is that the attacks were designed to provide said support.

CJK (talk) 22:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

It seems you haven't fully read the policy I've linked to. Here is the most relevant part of said policy:
"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the author(s) of that source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article."
Please read, understand, revert and try to keep it in mind for future edits. Thanks.TMCk (talk) 23:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
I didn't do any of that. The line I inserted was
Polling from February 2001 shows that, even before 9/11, a majority of Americans were in favor of sending troops back to the Persian Gulf to remove Saddam Hussein from power.
There is no "A and B implying C". There is just a presentation of Fact A.
CJK (talk) 00:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry but that's "nonsense". There is fact A (what some conspiracy theorists believe) and B, a statement implying that it can't be right b/c a source from before 9/11 has (besides other polling) a poll that says what you said in your edit. Can you see now that there is something wrong when you apply our policies to your edit in regards to OR/synth?TMCk (talk) 03:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
A and B of course implies C, that there was "enough support" already... at some point... [just to make it more clear for you].TMCk (talk) 03:26, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
It is a simple observation, informing people what the state of public opinion was before 9/11. You are the one doing the synthesis. Are you saying that all contradictory observations are OR synthesis? Or are you actually disputing the fact in question?
Are you seriously saying there is no way we can incorporate the results of this poll? Is it not highly relevant to the discussion?
Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. I did not do anything other than report the fact, given in one source. Please tell me where I arrived at a conclusion not stated in the source. Of course, the source was from before 9/11 so it does not mention 9/11.
CJK (talk) 12:47, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
@CJK: the burden is on you to show that this information is relevant to an article about conspiracy theories. So far you have not presented any source that connects this polling information to a CT, so you are continuing to violate WP:SYN by adding it back in. VQuakr (talk) 19:07, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Are you saying that the information is irrelevant? CJK (talk) 21:45, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
First you argued in your edit summary that it's just a fact you added. There are lots of facts that are not suitable to be included in this article.
Now you're saying/asking if the information is not relevant. It is not relevant if secondary sources have not made that connection. It might be relevant to you but you're not a reliable source to make that connection and give it relevance. Read up on OR/synth again while putting your personal believes/feeling aside and you should come to the same conclusion.TMCk (talk) 22:35, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Non-Topical Grammatical and Typo Errors[edit]

Footnote #193 lists Chip Berlet as, "Senior Analyst at Senior Research Associates, in Summerville, Massachusetts." That is incorrect. At the time of that interview on Democracy Now!, Berlet was Senior Analyst at Political Research Associates in Somerville, Massachusetts. See RushRhees (talk) 07:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done--MONGO 11:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)