Talk:9/11 truth movement

This article was nominated for deletion on 19 May 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Where did that template go?

How did the 9/11 Truth template get deleted with no discussion here or in any of the articles that referenced it, and virtually no discussion anywhere at all? Can we get a vote together on getting it back or getting a good replacement for it? Wowest (talk) 23:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The discussion was here [1] RxS (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View on Articles on Fringe Topics

There's been debate on many of the articles related to 9/11 conspiracy theories about what constitutes WP:NPOV. I made a similar post on the main article and thought it might be helpful here.

In articles on fringe topics, we are not supposed represent the fringe theory as if it is a legitimate viewpoint or on some kind of equal footing. Instead, we're supposed to fairly represent all sides of an issue per reliable sources. If reliable sources reflect a particular viewpoint, then we're supposed to represent that viewpoint as well. In regards to 9/11 conspiracy theories, I doubt if there are many (if any) reliable sources that claim 9/11 was a conspiracy by the US government. Even if there are any, weight should be roughly proportional to the preponderance of reliable sources backing that perspective.

As a result, there seems to be a WP:NPOV issue with this article. This article should treat this topic in the same manner as reliable sources do. Thus, if Popular Mechanics, the BBC, ABC News, Time Magazine, Rolling Stone Magazine, etc. regard 9/11 conspiracy theory as outlandish speculation completely unsupported by factual evidence, that that's how this article should be written. To do otherwise, is against WP:NPOV.

In other words, the viewpoints of reliable sources are the standard by which we write our articles and judge its neutrality. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

You're right. If reliable sources generally regard the theories as bunk, then giving the fringe theories equal time is itself a violation of NPOV. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I think A Quest For Knowledge needs to eat more sugar.

"But if 5 editors say the same thing, I think it carries more weight. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)" -- That one's from

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard

So, let's see. If four people agree with you, you must be right?

Eat sugar! 191,010,000,000,000,000,000 houseflies per year per mating couple can NOT be wrong!

http://entomology.ifas.ufl.edu/creatures/urban/flies/house_fly.HTM

O.K. dude. You are not talking about any kind of "fringe" movement, here.

As US News points out, we're talking about one third of the US population:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060903/11conspiracy.htm?s_cid=related-links:TOP

You are talking about, roughly, one hundred million Americans, out of 303,824,640 (July 2008 CIA estimate.)

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html#People

Time magazine says:

"Thirty-six percent adds up to a lot of people. This is not a fringe phenomenon. It is a mainstream political reality."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1531304-1,00.html

The Washington Post points out that this highly significant movement is even more popular in New York City, where the WTC was located.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/07/AR2006090701669_pf.html

You might, then, ask why something YOU don't believe in should have been so wildly popular then, and, of course, increasingly popular now. It has been widely documented, in reliable sources as far away as Australia, that top officials of the Bush administration told 935 lies following 9/11, not counting any related to the 9/11 Truth movement, which these reliable sources were ignoring.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23098129-401,00.html

So, as Time continues:

"The Administration is certainly playing its part in the drama with admirable zeal. If we went to war to root out fictional weapons of mass destruction, is staging a fictional terrorist attack such a stretch?"

Of course, the movement has also been covered by the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/05/us/05conspiracy.html?_r=2&pagewanted=print

The Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/oct/23/september112001.usnews

And, of course, Rolling Stone provides some evidence that we're talking about a third of the U.S. population (even though they disagree with it):

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/11818067/the_low_post_the_hopeless_stupidity_of_911_conspiracies

There you go, kid. Where are your "Reliable Sources?"

Wowest (talk) 00:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, Rolling Stone, the eminent authority on world affairs. Praise the Lord and pass the Kool-Aid! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You may have a point, there, Baseball Bugs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories#Neutral_Point_of_View_on_Articles_on_Fringe_Topics has the following statement: Thus, if Popular Mechanics, the BBC, ABC News, Time Magazine, Rolling Stone Magazine, etc. regard 9/11 conspiracy theory as outlandish speculation completed unsupported by factual evidence, that that's how this article should be written.... A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC) and that is what I was primarily responding to, here.

So, AQFK, you need to clean up your categories a little bit. Bugs has a problem with Rolling Stone, and Popular Mechanics is owned by the Hearst Corporation, which, by itself, would make it an unreliable source in this context. Reliable Sources are context sensitive, and nothing published by the Hearst Corporation can be considered reliable on any topic regarding religion, history or geography after the year 1860. If you can find a reliable source (not the Hearst Corporation, of course) that says that Hearst has changed its ways and has become reliable, please provide it. Actually, we have an article on the Popular Mechanics book and article, so you should really be doing your editing over there, where it belongs.

There are additional problems specific to Popular Mechanics, of course. It is a propaganda mouthpiece for the very same Military Industrial Complex that President Eisenhower warned us about. Every issue seems to romanticize one new weapons system or another, and they have gotten amazing cooperation from underlings in the Bush Regime. Insofar as 9/11 relates to America's military or other agencies of the executive branch, it just isn't a reliable source, because of their conflict of interest. There is a nice audio recording of Eisenhower's speech in that article, by the way. Wowest (talk) 06:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

If you believe that Popular Mechanics is not a reliable source, you should raise the issue on the WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth citation request

AE911truth.com claims to have the signatures of over 600 architects and engineers on their petition for a new 9/11 investigation. An organization's website is a reliable source for the claims it makes. They also claim about twice that number of non architect signatures, but, due to a temporary bug on the website, the list is not currently accessible, but the webmaster has been notified. Wowest (talk) 03:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy on extremist and fringe sources is this:

"Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as fringe, pseudoscience or extremist should be used only as sources about themselves and in articles about themselves or their activities. Any information used must be directly relevant to the subject. Articles should not be based primarily on such sources. An individual extremist or fringe source may be entirely excluded if there is no independent evidence that it is prominent enough for mention. The material taken from such sources should not involve claims made about third parties. Fringe and extremist sources must not be used to obscure or describe the mainstream view, nor used to indicate a fringe theory's level of acceptance."

At this point, I am not planning to make any changes to the 9/11 conspiracy articles, at least not for days, if not weeks. My goal right now is simply to explain Wikipedia's policies so that when the changes are made, it is understood why. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Wowest, thank you for your latest edit regarding Medical Proffessionals for 9/11 truth, but I thought I brought it to your attention last week that there are restrictions on using fringe sources. First, since no one has provided any reliable sources that mention this organization, there is no independent evidence that it is prominent enough for mention. Second, articles should not be based primarily on such sources. This article already has too many fringe sources so adding more just makes the problem even worse. If you disagree, please post your reasons on this Talk Page rather than arbitrarily reverting someone else's edit. That's part of the reason why I posted the above last week. Thank you in advance. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

They are mentioned a couple of times in [2]. Hut 8.5 07:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't view that site because it requires paid registration. There is a free trial, but apparently I've already exceeded the number of articles I can view without having to pay. Does it reference "Medical Professionals for 9/11 truth" or "Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth"? What does it say about them? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

On Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, it says that they are "one of the dozens of groups across the US which campaign to persuade us that everything we think we know about 9/11 is wrong", that it was founded by a California architect named Richard Gage, and spends some time describing one of their talks. It doesn't mention the medical organisation. Hut 8.5 18:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

We seem to be mixing apples and giraffes here. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth is mentioned on 53,000 websites. Fire Fighters for 9/11 Truth is mentioned on 2,800 websites. Medical Professional for 9/11 Truth is mentioned on 719 other websites despite being brand-new. Pilots for 9/11 Truth is mentioned on 14,000 other websites. Veterans for 9/11 Truth/Operation Vigilant Truth is mentioned on 2,260 other websites. Each of these organizations self-identifies as part of the 9/11 Truth Movement. This is probably the closest thing you can come to an individual membership list. Wowest (talk) 06:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Rob Van Dam

I was cleaning up this page for archiving and for some reason the page refreshed and I lost everything so screw it. Someone fix all this shoddy spaced up stuff and archive it so you don't have to scroll through a mile of filth to comment because I don't have luck here. Anyway, why I wanted to comment: I have been listening to his podcast, I think he or some people on his show may support the movement. Should I post a transcript of episode 2? Is it notable? Are many celebrities involved in this? Tyciol (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Clinton being heckled by 9/11 conspiracy theoriest

Cosmic Latte, you mentioned in your most recent edit that "there is an archived consensus in the main 9/11 article's talk against lumping Truthers and conspiracy theorists together." Can you please point me to this particular discussion? Thanks! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The discussion is here. But even if it weren't, the source says nada about 9/11 Truth (not all "conspiracy theorists" identify with the movement, and not all members of the movement adhere to any particular theory; indeed, some believe that the truth is not even knowable at this point, hence the movement on behalf of its ascertainment), so the implication that Clinton's criticism of this heckler qualifies as an example of criticism of the Truth movement would be original research. Or original speculation, anyway, which should be doubly avoided as long as we can assume the heckler to be living (and, for that matter, as long as Clinton is living, because we don't want to risk misrepresenting his views). But the whole thing is an easy fit for 9/11 conspiracy theories, so I can't fathom why inclusion in 9/11 Truth Movement would be preferable in the first place. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. (Sorry it took so long to respond, I got side tracked editing another article.) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Removal of new paper

Removals of the new paper on thermite in the WTC are baseless -- this is a significant event for the group Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice and there is no basis for removing it except that editors are trying to hide the important findings of the paper. I urge those who are not aware of this paper to actually read it -- [3]. It has been widely reported in Denmark and in alternative US press, as well as Deseret News. For example, the Danish government-owned television channel TV2 has broadcast an interview and a discussion with the corresponding author of the paper, Niels Harrit. The discussion took place in a breakfast talkshow named "Good morning, Denmark". The interview, with English subtitles, can be found here. This is a significant event in the history of the movement as a search for the exact title of the paper ("Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe") on google returns over 17,900 matches, and it's only been less than 2 weeks. Locewtus (talk) 20:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin continues to remove the paper with no discussion (4/13/09), and has made no case for why it needs to be removed from this page. Locewtus (talk) 19:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

There's no real reason for inclusion on this page. On the other hand, a mention on the CDT911 may be in order, provided it's phrased in a way to suggest that we don't know whether it's credible. I admit to supporting its removal from there, as well. As for google hits, how many of those are echos of your attempts to add the article and discussion on that, or on Truther attempts to add the article to other inappropriate blogs? If that's signficant, maybe it should be included here for that reason, but not because of any additional credibility lent the movenet. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

What's your rationale for determining that a group whose members publish a paper that has a huge impact on the members of the group, that is covered in mainstream media, cannot be posted on this page? What basis do you have to say it is not "credible"? Your derogatory comments to user Locewtus make it fairly clear you are not capable of a neutral position on this topic. I support adding the paper to the Scholars section. ScholarTruthJustice (talk) 20:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

What's your rationale for attributing the authors of that paper to that group? Even if the group claims them as members, that could easily be self-serving. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I guess that speaks to the level of intelligence of the editors on here! At least 4 of the authors are members of that group and it only takes 1 second to find that out, like [4]. It seems people talking about the editors on here being biased are right, why should the group that these people are members of not be allowed to mention their paper if it wasn't because the editors are trying to hide the paper? PiedmontRes (talk) 19:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Yet another sock puppet. In any case, I was listed as a member of one of these groups at one point, and was only able to remove myself by threatening a lawsuit. We need independent evidence of membership in a group such as this one. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like this [5] has a reference to the lead author being a member of that group, and this one and this one link Steven Jones with it also.Researcher09 (talk) 23:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The 9/11 conspiracy people seem to want to change this article from who the group 9/11 Truth Movement are and what they represent, to a repository for all papers that come about that may hold a glimmer of hope to prove their theory. They have entire websites dedicated to these things, posting them here would not be allowed for any other subject or group, so it should not be allowed here. ON TOP OF THIS, conspiracy advocates continually modify this entire article to read the way they wish. i.e. three times this week alone I removed the statement "The US Government blames the CIA FBI and NSA for the 9/11 disaster" These little re-wordings are why this article is continually a source of graffiti and changes by people that do not believe the government had a hand in the disaster. That and forged "" official recognitions" will unfortunately, eventually be the demise of this as an open article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.17.210.153 (talk) 19:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Size?

Are there any reliable sources on the actual size of the Truth movement? I've seen truthers throw some pretty ridiculous claims out there, like 100 million. But is there a realistic number we can put in the lede of the article? — NRen2k5^(TALK), 09:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I've never seen any actual numbers. In any case, most of this article is based on fringe sources and probably needs to be removed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Time Magazine cited a poll earlier as a basis of its claim that this is a "mainstream reality," and not a "fringe" movement. It is, of course WP:FRINGE, if not "real" fringe. There haven't been any recent polls that I'm aware of, but a while back, 19 percent of the US population believed in the controlled demolition theory, per se. 300 million Americans -- say at least 20 percent aware of the situation by now, since more people have seen the videos of the collapse of building 7. That would be 60 million, but half of those are probably children with no opinion, so, let's say 30 million adults. Well, that's the CDH. As for "inside job," about half of New York City residents think it's an inside job. As you move out into the country, away from local New York news sources and into network and Clear Channel territory, I'm sure it goes way down. It depends on your definitions, of course. I'd say 30 million passive members, mostly in the better educated states, is reasonable, but there aren't that many activists out there with picket signs. It depends on your definition. Of course, it also depends on whatever "inside job" means. That's quite open to interpretation. Wowest (talk) 22:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Generally, it's quite difficult to determine the size of any movement. Germany, for example, has a higher percentage of employees belonging to a union than France, but demonstrations of French unions are often larger. It's even more difficult with, for example, the anti-globalization movement (which is somewhat strangely characterized as "anti-consumerist", maybe a U.S.-centric view of the issue?). Any number would probably not add useful information, but rather lead to misunderstandings. Sometimes it's possible to determine the size of organizations, but even there, the characteristics of membership or support are often quite different.  Cs32en  23:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Wowest, I'd prefer seeing the actual data rather than the interpretations of a credulous Truther. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 09:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I doubt if there's anything backed by enough reliable sources that we can use, especially for the article lede. Many of the polls that have been used are sufficiently vague such that they can be interpretted in many different ways. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

In a recent national Zogby poll the number would be closer to 250,000 and that is being very generous! Another poll of 1,000 people at a rally for bringing criminal charges against former members of the Bush Administration for war crimes and treason, gave an even more startling result. 117 people believed the government was involved in the 9/11 disaster in some way. 813 people said the government was in no way involved in the 9/11 attacks.(When the 813 were reminded this was under the Bush Administration's watch 14 people changed their vote, to reflect they believe the Government knew something about 9/11 prior to the event.) And 70 people had not made a decision. (The 14 votes were not changed to believing the government was involved because this was felt to be an interesting but tainted result). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.17.210.153 (talk) 19:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Steven Jones did or did not publish?

This sentence gave me the impression that Jones failed to publish his research in a peer reviewed journal: Jones has to date failed to get his paper published in any established, peer reviewed mainstream science journal. But then I saw this:

The Open Civil Engineering Journal

The Open Chemical Physics Journal

How do we reconcile the paradox? Are we saying the journals are not peer reviewed, or are we saying they are not simultaneously mainstream/established? The sentence above seems pretty clunky, obfuscatory, by joining all the "requirements" into one phrase (peer/main/estab) instead of just revealing simply the reality. Let the reader decide. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 02:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

They aren't peer reviewed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I CAN WRITE IN THE Open Civil Engineering Journal, YOU Can write in THE Open Civil Engineering Journal. And if you look, it is uncertain this is even the same Steven Jones! For that matter John Q. Public can write in THE Open Civil Engineering Journal under an assumed name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.17.210.153 (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

No, they ARE peer-reviewed, and no R/S says otherwise. Wowest (talk) 05:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Peer Reviewed in this case often means nothing more than it was read by the author... There is not a single article no matter how off the wall, unproved, or even consisting of pure fantasy, that has ever been removed.

No reliable source says they are peer-reviewed, and there is evidence that at least Jones' paper was not peer-reviewed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The business says that their papers are peer-reviewed. What happened to "assume good faith?" No reliable source provides any evidence that Jones' paper was not peer-reviewed. Wowest (talk) 07:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

1. They’re not peer-reviewed.
2. “Assume good faith” applies to editors, not sources.
3. Oh really? — NRen2k5^(TALK), 08:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The whole issue of whether the Open Chemical Physics Journal is WP:RS or not is a bit pointless, as nobody proposed that Wikipedia should present any information from the journal as factually correct. The issue is whether we should give the information on the publication of the article as evidenced by reliable sources. Such reliable sources would be the major Danish journal Jyllands Posten and the science magazine Videnskap, which is sponsored by the Danish government. They have indeed reported that the Open Chemical Physics Journal is a peer-reviewed journal. (I think there are legitimate questions with regard to the quality of this peer review process.)

http://www.bentham.org/open/oaMembership.php Read the requirements for membership. Pay the dues, and you can become a peer reviewed engineer yourself...

• Jyllands Posten: "De opsigtsvækkende resultater er netop offentliggjort i The Open Chemical Physics Journal - et gratis online-tidsskrift med peer-review." [6]
• Videnskab: "De opsigtsvækkende resultater er netop offentliggjort i The Open Chemical Physics Journal - et peer-reviewed tidsskrift" [7]  Cs32en  19:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I gather that Cs32 is saying that the question of whether a certain journal is WPRS does not specifically arise here because no one is proposing that the article present information from the journal as the scientific consensus / fact. It seems to me RS and peer review have never been standards by which the fact of an authors' work is to be censored, buried, concealed, or not. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 04:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Remember, that sentence is characterizing Jones' publications specifically (not the ultimate science consensus). The fact that those publications exist is no more in question than is that we all breath air. The sentence in the article, by omitting the specific truth, would nurture the view that those publications don't exist, which is flatly misleading. This is important. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 04:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I don’t have a beef about Jones’ et al paper being cited as RS about itself. What I have a beef with is anybody trying to make the article say the paper was published in a “peer reviewed journal”, even moreso if they try to call it a “established, mainstream” one.

The term “peer-reviewed” has a specific definition, and Bentham Open does not meet it (see peer review, [8] and [9]). Bentham Open is more like a vanity press than a peer reviewed journal. But I digress. I don’t care what BO is most like – the point is that it isn’t a peer-reviewed journal in the actual sense of the term.

Now, obviously this is a bit of original research on my part, but I’m not the one proposing to add information, and I’ve given you plenty of verifiable quotes on the matter from qualified academics. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 07:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as I see, there are some scholars who say that the peer-review process of the journal is flawed. They don't say that it is not a peer-reviewed journal. I don't think it's really important, and we do not describe other journals as peer-reviewed or not peer-reviewed either. Neither the fact that it is peer-reviewed nor the fact that some scholars are voicing concerns about the peer-review is particularly notable, judging from the evidence we have from WP:RS sources. We actually do not even need the article as a WP:SELFPUB source, as the WP:RS sources have enough information on the content of the article as well.  Cs32en  09:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I agree. I think Bentham Open and its journals would be a ripe topic for debate in academic circles, but they aren’t particularly relevant to this article. And the thermite conspiracy theory is already “out there”.

As an aside, I’d love to see some qualified academics’ comments on the paper if/when any ever give it a serious read. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 03:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I meant that the question of whether the journal is peer-reviewed or not is not really important, because we should treat the publication as a document, not as a source in our article. At the same time, I think that the article should include information about the contents of the publication, as "fringe theory proponents are excellent sources for describing what they believe".  Cs32en  12:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

That phrase is taken out of context. The complete paragraph is actually "While fringe theory proponents are excellent sources for describing what they believe, the best sources to use when determining the notability and prominence of fringe theories are independent sources. For example, when trying to decide whether a fringe idea is prominent enough for inclusion in a particular article on a mainstream subject, mention of the fringe theory in an independent source firmly establishes its relevance. It can also provide a guide for describing the relationship of the fringe idea to the mainstream viewpoint." Independent sources would include things such as Popular Mechanics, Time Magazine, Washington Post, etc. and I agree fully that per this quote, we should have more coverage given to independent sources instead of fringe sources. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

FROM THE FIRST PAGE OF THE OPEN JOURNAL FORUM:

"The advantage of the Open Journal series is that it is just that: open, and accessible to anyone with a PC at no charge I appeal to scholars across the disciplines to consider the Open Journal series as a forum for their work." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.17.210.153 (talk) 19:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Understand that this means that the journal is open and accessible to anyone to read from their PC, not that it is open and accessible to anyone to write from their PC. Wildbear (talk) 22:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

New 911 Witness - David Long

9/11 Eyewitness David Long Interview with Truth Action Ottawa

On May 8, 2009, members of Truth Action Ottawa interviewed Mr. David Long, who was in downtown Manhattan the morning of September 11, 2001. Mr. Long recounts everything he saw and heard that morning, including multiple streams of molten metal pouring from the buildings before they fell, and the sounds of multiple explosions as the buildings came down. 911Eyewitness-DavidLong —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davelong7 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Dave, just because you think you heard something and reported it to a fringe 911 Truth group (yes, I mean "fringe" even among 911 Truth groups), doesn't make it worthy of inclusion in a Wikipedia article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Related "David Long 9/11 interview" sources or opinions:
Truth Action Ottawa
You Tube 1300+ views
Channels RSS Feed
East Anglia Truth
Truth Action Australia
911 Blogger
Above Top Secret
North Texans For 9/11 Truth
911 Anomoly
Truth Action (Main Website)
--Davelong7 (talk) 09:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Moving the page to 9/11 Truth movement

I am moving this page from 9/11 Truth Movement to 9/11 Truth movement, as it describes a social phenomenon, not an organization. While a number of sources call it "9/11 Truth Movement", they do not specifically say that it is generally being called so. However, a long and well researched article in the Financial Times says that the people supporting these views are "an army of sceptics, collectively described as the 9/11 Truth movement" [10].  Cs32en  15:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and biased opinion piece reference

NRen2k5 summarizes a partial reversion with "don't change/remove well referenced info without a good reason." Allow me to offer what I feel is a very good reason for removing this particular reference. It's an opinion piece from the Arts & Entertainment section of a UK web site, and it is passionately biased with loaded language words and raw opinion in almost every sentence. As well as being technically inaccurate and deceptive. It's not encyclopedic at all. There are much better references available which can give a fair and accurate review of what AE911Truth is about without the biased opinion and loaded language. How about this one from Reuters, for example? I'll leave it for other editors reading this page to decide whether or not my statement here has merit. Hopefully you will read the UK article and see what I mean. (And then get rid of that unencyclopedic reference.) Wildbear (talk) 07:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Point taken about the Independent ref.

As for the Reuters link you just posted… That’s not Reuters, that’s Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth themselves. It’s a press release. See those exact words in the URL you provided? — NRen2k5^(TALK), 08:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is a press release. That's why I have not used it. (Although the fact that you can read it on the USA Today website indicates some notability, it's of course a self-published source, so not particularly appropriate for characterization or assessment of the organization itself.) There is a Reuters press report (meaning written by Reuters itself) about AE911Truth in Spanish, which has been taken out of the article, with "English sources, please", or something similar, given as the reason.  Cs32en  08:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The fact that a press release appears in a prominent place does not correlate with notability. It may correlate with somebody paying BusinessWire something like $595 to distribute the release. Press releases are primary sources, only useful for adding non-controversial details to a notable subject. (e.g. IBM reported net earnings of $X in 2008). Jehochman ^Talk 14:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that one would have to look very carefully at what specific place a press release appears and by which agency it is being distributed. I would treat press releases as self-published sources, not as primary sources, however.  Cs32en  14:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge from Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

The reliable sources that mention the organization do so in passing, and as one of the Truther groups. Separating it out and presenting the group's views at length, and as an alternative to the mainstream view, is a distortion. I think we should merge and redirect here. More discussion is at Talk:Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth#What is this article about?. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

That's fine with me. This organization is not notable. Let's move whatever content doesn't already overlap with what's already in 9/11 Truth movement. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:MERGE lists the following "good reasons" to merge a page:

1. Duplicate - There are two or more pages on exactly the same subject and having the same scope.
2. Overlap - There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. For example, "Flammable" and "Non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on Flammability.
3. Text - If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic. For instance, parents or children of a celebrity who are otherwise unremarkable are generally covered in a section of the article on the celebrity, and can be merged there.
4. Context - If a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it. For instance, minor characters from works of fiction are generally covered in a "List of characters in <work>", and can be merged there; see also WP:FICT.

Which of these reasons do you think would apply in this case? This article is already at the upper limit with regard to its length.  Cs32en  15:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth isn't notable. The alternative to moving content is deletion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Given that the article meets all criteria of WP:N, your statement is probably based on your personal point of view.  Cs32en  15:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Not according to that article's talk page. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Merge There are a number of sources which deal exclusively with AE, notability is certainly met, independent of other 'truther' groups. While Gage might be mentioned in a number of the articles that is hardly surprising as he seems to be the spokesman and a frequent speaker at presentations. Here are a couple sources establishing notability:

Yes it is true that there are other truther organizations, there is also otherstuff, that does not mean they should all be merged. Unomi (talk) 17:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyone else have thoughts? Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose merge (for now). Agree with Unomi. And AE911T is unique at least in that has some modicum of professionalism that other Truther groups don’t. If somebody can be bothered to invest some time in the article it can be improved. Otherwise, if this comes to a vote again, I’ll support a merge. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 00:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Split discussion on Organizations section

The article is probably getting too long, and this is an obvious point where a subarticle can be split off.  Cs32en  16:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

A lot of it is unsourced and probably should be ripped from the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

And of course much is redundant with 9/11 conspiracy theories, 9/11 Truth Movement, Steven E. Jones, World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories, Jim Hoffman, Loose Change (film), The New Pearl Harbor, and so on. The last thing the reader needs is yet another Truther soapbox and linkfarm. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

What's the point of the "Mainstream media coverage" coverage section? Either we should work those into the article, add them to the external links or remove this section entirely. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree it should be split, there is plenty of precedent. If it's sloppy or unsourced, it can be fixed 99.231.211.103 (talk) 18:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Is "9/11 Truth movement" a neologism?

A {{neologism}} template has been added to the article. The use of the term by reliable sources is relevant for determining whether it is a neologism in the sense used by Wikipedia policy guidelines. Most reliable sources actually use "9/11 Truth movement" to describe the subject of this article and/or say that this term is commonly being used as a description.  Cs32en  02:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources that say "9/11 Truth movement" is commonly being used

1. Barber, Peter (June 7, 2008). "The truth is out there". Financial Times. Retrieved May 23, 2009. an army of sceptics, collectively described as the 9/11 Truth movement
2. Powell, Michael (Sep. 8, 2006). "The Disbelievers". The Washington Post. Retrieved May 30, 2009. The loose agglomeration known as the '9/11 Truth Movement' {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
3. Barry, Ellen (Sep. 10, 2006). "9/11 Conspiracy Theorists Gather in N.Y." Los Angeles Times. Retrieved May 30, 2009. a group known as the 9/11 Truth Movement {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
4. Hunt, H.E. (Nov. 19, 2008). "The 30 greatest conspiracy theories - part 1". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved May 30, 2009. A large group of people - collectively called the 9/11 Truth Movement {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
5. Kay, Jonathan (April 25, 2009). "Richard Gage: 9/11 truther extraordinaire". National Post. Retrieved May 30, 2009. The '9/11 Truth Movement,' as it is now commonly called

Use of the terms "9/11 Truth movement" and "9/11 deniers" by reliable sources

9/11 Truth movement

1. Feuer, Alan (June 5, 2006). "500 Conspiracy Buffs Meet to Seek the Truth of 9/11". New York Times.
   • the movement known as "9/11 Truth," [...]
   • The controlled-demolition theory is the sine qua non of the 9/11 movement
2. Powell, Michael (Sep. 8, 2006). "The Disbelievers". The Washington Post. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) (See also: MSNBC)
   • The loose agglomeration known as the "9/11 Truth Movement"
   • Author unknown, but often quoted by the 9/11 truth movement
   • Some days the 9/11 truth movement resembles an Italian coalition government
3. Grossman, Lev (Sep. 3, 2006). "Why the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Won't Go Away". Time. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
   • the 9/11 Truth Movement, as many conspiracy believers refer to their passion
4. Thornburgh, Nathan (Jul. 1, 2008). "The Mess at Ground Zero". Time. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
   • a new twist on the 9/11 Truth Movement
5. Barry, Ellen (Sep. 10, 2006). "9/11 Conspiracy Theorists Gather in N.Y." Los Angeles Times. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
   • a group known as the 9/11 Truth Movement
6. Tobin, Hugh (May 21, 2008). "Conspiracy theory lunacy". Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
   • the 9/11 Truth Movement in Australia
   • those in the 9/11 Truth Movement
   • groups such as the 9/11 Truth Movement
7. "The evolution of a conspiracy theory". BBC. July 4, 2008.
   • George Bush is hiding something, says the 9/11 truth movement
8. Barber, Peter (June 7, 2008). "The truth is out there". Financial Times.
   • an army of sceptics, collectively described as the 9/11 Truth movement
   • British MP Michael Meacher, became a touchstone in the 9/11 Truth movement
   • the 9/11 truth movement is fighting a kind of asymmetric war
   • the likes of the 9/11 Truth movement
   • Fenster thinks that the 9/11 Truth movement
   • Perhaps the 9/11 Truth movement is
   • by the 9/11 Truth movement
9. Monbiot, George (Feb. 20, 2007). "9/11 fantasists pose a mortal danger to popular oppositional campaigns". The Guardian. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
   • In fact it seems to me that the purpose of the "9/11 truth movement" is to be powerless.
10. Walker, Peter (Sep. 14, 2007). "Binoche falls for 9/11 conspiracy theories". The Guardian. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
    • Juliette Binoche has allied herself with the 9/11 'truth movement'
11. O'Connor, Rory (Nov. 16, 2006). "Joining the dots of ineptitude". The Guardian. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
    • Lance has actually done the 9/11 truth movement a distinct service
12. Hunt, H.E. (Nov. 19, 2008). "The 30 greatest conspiracy theories - part 1". The Daily Telegraph. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
    • A large group of people - collectively called the 9/11 Truth Movement
13. Kay, Jonathan (April 25, 2009). "Richard Gage: 9/11 truther extraordinaire". National Post.
    • The "9/11 Truth Movement," as it is now commonly called
14. Gibson, John (May 17, 2007). "Rudy Giuliani Squares Off With Rep. Ron Paul Over 9/11 at GOP Debate". FOX News.
    • The so-called 9/11 Truth Movement
15. Sullivan, Will (Sep. 3, 2006). "Viewing 9/11 From a Grassy Knoll". U.S. News & World Report. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
    • The film has made Avery, who was twice rejected from film school, the toast of the 9/11 Truth movement
16. Hayes, Christopher (Dec. 8, 2006). "The 9/11 Truth Movement's Dangers". The Nation. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) (See also: CBS News)
    • the so-called 9/11 Truth Movement
17. Manjoo, Farhad (Aug. 7, 2008). "The Anthrax Truth Movement". Slate. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
    • members of the 9/11 "truth" movement
18. Rossmeier, Vincent (May 16, 2008). "In the land of believers". Salon.
    • experiences with members of the 9/11 Truth Movement
    • a convention for the 9/11 Truth Movement
    • equating Christians with members of the 9/11 Truth Movement
19. Leonard, Andrew (Oct. 3, 2007). "Yet another horrible housing data point". Salon. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
    • usually associated with 9/11 Truth Movement conspiracy theorists
20. Gravois, John (June 23, 2006). "Professors of Paranoia?". The Chronicle of Higher Education.
    • the "9/11 truth movement," as the conspiracy theorists call themselves, to date.
    • arguments coming out of the 9/11 Truth movement
21. Harvey, Adam (Sep. 3, 2006). "9/11 myths busted". Courier Mail. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
    • what adherents like to call the "9/11 Truth Movement"
22. Taibbi, Matt (Sep. 26, 2006). "I, Left Gatekeeper". Rolling Stone. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
    • I have two basic gripes with the 9/11 Truth movement.
    • What is the theory of the crime, according to the 9/11 Truth movement?
23. Nelson, Rob (Jul. 7, 2008). "The Reflecting Pool". Variety. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
    • The 9/11 truth movement might believe
24. Kennedy, Gene (Sep. 8, 2006). "BYU Professor on Paid Leave for 9-11 Theory". KSL TV. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
    • Jones is a physics professor involved in what's called the "9-11 Truth Movement."
25. O'Neill, Xana; Grace, Melissa (Sep. 9, 2007). "Filmmaker arrested during city protest". Daily News (New York). {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
    • Jones is closely linked to the 9/11 Truth Movement
26. Walch, Ted (Sept. 8, 2006). "BYU places '9/11 truth' professor on paid leave". Deseret Morning News. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
    • the so-called "9/11 truth movement"
    • Jones and his high-profile role in the 9/11 truth movement
27. Ruelas, Richard (June 9, 2008). "Activist hungry for 'truth' about 9/11". The Arizona Republic.
    • Some of Gadsby's theories, and those of the 9/11 Truth Movement
28. Lemons, Stephen (Aug. 8, 2007). "The Yoda of 9/11". Phoenix New Times. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
    • outright lies of the 9/11 truth movement

Both terms

1. Bunch, Sonny (Sep. 24, 2007). "The Truthers Are Out There". The Weekly Standard. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
   • Leftwing causes converge with the 9/11 denial movement.
   • the loosely affiliated conspiracy theorists that comprise the 9/11 Truth Movement
   • not everyone involved in the 9/11 Truth Movement was so crazy
   • these 9/11 deniers

9/11 deniers

1. Manjoo, Farhad (June 27, 2006). "The 9/11 deniers". Salon.
   • converts to the "9/11 truth movement," the loose affiliation of skeptics who doubt the official story
2. Abel, Jennifer (Jan. 29, 2008). "Theories of 9/11". Hartford Advocate. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
   • Where on this spectrum do the 9/11 deniers fall?
   • The 9/11 deniers have another explanation.
3. Post, National (2008-09-27). "A tale of three candidates". National Post (f/k/a The Financial Post) (Canada). As recently as last year, Ms. Hughes was still peddling her preposterous views, appearing on a panel in Winnipeg with notorious 9/11 denier Barry Zwicker and others. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
4. "English-Arabic Public School Faces Harsh Critics". National Public Radio (NPR). 2008-05-15. But soon after the school is announced, you know, she began seeing herself depicted in the media and blogs as a Jihadist and a 9/11-denier. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
   • Refers to an individual, not to a movement or a set of organizations.
5. Goldstein, By Steve. "Few theorists insist terrorists were not behind attacks". Philadelphia Inquirer. Among the leading 9/11 deniers is French author Thierry Meyssan, whose book "L'Effroyable Imposture," or "The Horrifying Fraud," is a refutation not only of the official version of events but even of eyewitness accounts. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
6. ELLIOTT, By ANDREA (2008-04-28). "Her Dream, Branded as a Threat". The New York Times. In newspaper articles and Internet postings, on television and talk radio, Ms. Almontaser was branded a 'radical,' a 'jihadist' and a '9/11 denier.' {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
   • Refers to an individual, not to a movement or a set of organizations.
7. John, Ray, (2008-06-22). "How skeptics confronted 9/11 conspiracy advocates". Skeptic (Altadena, CA). Staking their fortunes almost solely on Internet-based content mayhave been the 9/11 deniers' biggest mistake. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
8. BETTELHEIM, ANGIE DROBNIC HOLAN; WES ALLISON; ADRIEL (2008-04-17). "INCOME INEQUALITY ON THE RISE". St. Petersburg Times (Florida). Iran's 9/11 denier - The statement - 'Again today he (Ahmadinejad) made light of 9/11 and said that he's not even sure it happened and that people actually died.' {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
   • Refers to an individual, not to a movement or a set of organizations.
9. White, Roland (2006-09-10). "Rebel MI5 agent says 9/11 planes were holograms". The Sunday Times (London). David Shayler, the former MI5 officer turned whistleblower, has joined the 9/11 deniers. 'We know for certain that the official story of 9/11 isn't true,' he tells the New Statesman. 'The twin towers did not collapse because of planes and fire. They were brought down in a controlled demolition. The Pentagon was most likely hit by an American missile, not an aeroplane.' Not that he thinks planes hit the towers. 'I believe no planes were involved in 9/11. The only explanation is that they were missiles surrounded by holograms made to look like planes.' {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
10. Gazette, LINDA GYULAI, The (2006-06-05). "Resisting the machine: Monsieur Bergeron goes to city hall". The Gazette (Montreal). Media organizations were calling for interviews with Bergeron. They wanted to know why he was a 9/11 denier. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
    • Refers to an individual, not to a movement or a set of organizations.

Discussion

Did you bother reading WP:NEO? You just posted a bunch of irrelevant links. Per WP:NEO, "Neologisms are words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities....Wikipedia is a tertiary source that includes material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

BTW, can you please put your post inside a collapsable box since it is not germane to the discussion at hand? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Your comment is itself irrelevant (note that this word contains only two e's). Neologisms are not forbidden in Wikipedia, if reliable sources say that they are generally being used. You need to read the WP:NEO guideline in its entirety.  Cs32en  03:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the spelling correction. (I rescued a stray dog this afternoon and then went to another dog's b-day party, so I appologize for any spelling/typo mistakes made during this period.) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

No, please read WP:NEO in full. Per WP:NEO, I've consulted two of the most prestigious English language dictionaries, Oxford's and Merriam-Webster and neither have a definition for this term which indicates that it's a neologism. I will check other, highly respected dictionaries to see if they have entries for these terms. If they don't, it's clearly a neologism. So far, it doesn't look good. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Remember, the National Post is an unreliable source because of their Iran story, so it cannot be included in the above list. 76.102.212.231 (talk) 08:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually most of the sources give definitions or clarify what they mean by the term. There is nothing that points to '9/11 Truth Movement' is less of a valid name for an article than AIDS Denialism. I am starting to considering it borderline disruptive to continue down this path. Unomi (talk) 10:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Following Wikipedia policies and guidelines shouldn't be considered disruptive.A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the definition of the movement to "9/11 Truth movement is the collective name of organizations and individuals that question whether the United States government was either negligent toward or complicit in the September 11 attacks." The new definition is in line with the link [11] which says "Such was the coming-out for the movement known as '9/11 Truth,' a society of skeptics and scientists who believe the government was complicit in the terrorist attacks." I added negligence due to source [12] which says "Then there are the LIHOPs and MIHOPs. Most 'truthers' are MIHOPs - they think the government Made It Happen On Purpose, planning and orchestrating the 9/11 attacks. But LIHOPs believe the government just Let It Happen On Purpose, to allow them to justify wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and a clampdown on civil liberties." I'm hoping both truthers and skeptics of the truth movement can agree on this new definition. The old definition was unacceptably broad, but the new one should be a better guide to who is and who is not a Truther. Billebrooks (talk) 03:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

"9/11 Truth movement is the collective name of organizations and individuals that question whether the United States government was either negligent toward or complicit in the September 11 attacks." For some individuals and organizations in the truth movement, this may be jumping forward too rapidly. A search for truth begins with a full examination of the evidence, before putting forward any speculation on who may have been negligent or complicit. It would not be inaccurate to say that many, and perhaps most in the movement question the story of 9/11 from the US government, and are calling for a new investigation. Some, but not all, are willing to openly speculate on culpability. Some of the organizations explicitly decline to do so (Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, for example.) Wildbear (talk) 06:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I've changed it to "9/11 Truth movement is the collective name of organizations and individuals that question whether the United States government was either negligent toward or complicit in the September 11 attacks, or else actively blocking a full investigation of the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings." That should cover Richard Gage and his organization. Billebrooks (talk) 23:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Added the following clarification: "When negligence is alleged, motives given are nefarious such as allowing the launch of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq or curtailing civil liberties." Billebrooks (talk) 05:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems strange to suddenly change a phrase that has been in use on here for years now. Nothing changed in the culture or language to suggest that "deniers" is now preferable to "conspiracy theorists". The impression this emotional word gives is that editors are upset about having to try to refute the claims and are just getting more forceful about it, as "denier" is used primarily by those most defensive against the claims and, hence, needing a most forceful term, as in Islamofascist. The case against AIDS "denialists" has increased over time, and their supporters and numbers in areas like the scientific community in the US has dwindled, while this is the opposite for the 9/11 truth movement, which continues to appear on news programs and now is promoted directly from booths at the national AIA Convention (2009). No AIDS organization would allow people claiming AIDS wasn't caused by HIV to have a booth at their event. These are very different situations.76.102.212.231 (talk) 16:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

If it's strange, it's only because these articles are biased and don't follow WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:RS. If there's a single article related to 9/11 conspiracy theories that is actually following Wikipedia policies, I am not aware of it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk)

Fascinating that all these years no one else seemed aware of this. 76.102.212.231 (talk) 19:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, these articles attract a lot of POV pushers who are more concerned with promoting their conspiracy theories than writing good articles for Wikipedia. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and "9/11 denier" is has no agenda whatsoever. Removing links as POV and unreliable appears to mainly function as a means to remove any mention of the information, little more. 76.102.212.231 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC).

No, I would love to be able to add material to the article, but most of my time is taken trying to undo the damage of POV pushers. So my primary contribution is to prevent the articles from getting worse, an effort I think I've been fairly successful at. WP:NPOV, WP:V are important Wikipedia policies and can't simply be ignored. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I tend to wonder about that. You didn't have any problem with the mention of Steven Jones researching nanothermite in the intro of the demolition article, until it happened to include a link to that research, and then it was suddenly time to remove any mention of nanothermite. These kinds of edits seem to show you have your own POV. You seem to only add information to debunk the claims, not to actually show what the claims are, which would be neutral. 76.102.212.231 (talk) 20:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Bentham has been discussed at length multiple times on the talk pages and concensus to include it was never reached. The part about Jones saying he was planning to do something in the future is hardly important enough to include in the lede. I'm pretty sure I removed it before, but somehow it worked its way back in. You have to realize that there are few, if any, reliable sources that say 9/11 was a conspiracy by elements within the US government so the POV of this article will reflect the POV of WP:RS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It's like writing an article about UFOs, but you cannot show any of the images of the things that people think are UFOs because none of the images are "reliable". Can you see the ridiculousness of such standards? The far better thing to do is to merely show the image, or post the paper, and then post a counter position or a refutation. Both of the claim and the response should be allowed in the spirit of what the purpose of wikipedia is, not just the refutation, while readers are expected to merely imagine what is being refuted, what the person the supposed page is about -- UFOlogist or conspiracy theorist -- is claiming, because the image is questionable or the paper was not published in Nature. Additionally, you yourself said that the National Post was not a reliable source when it was covering Richard Gage, but then it was used to try to support a use of the phrase "9/11 denier". So different standards appear to apply depending on context. 76.102.212.231 (talk) 01:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you can show images of what people think are UFOs from outer space but they have to be published by reliable sources (and not violate copyright restrictions). As for 9/11 deniers, you are mistaken. The source was the Hartford Advocate[13], not the National Post. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that 76.102.212.231 is referring to this edit.  Cs32en  02:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Images on Wikipedia do not need to have been published in WP:RS sources, but such sources must reference their content.  Cs32en  03:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the term "9/11 Truth Movement" is a neologism of the sort that the guideline WP:NEO is talking about. That refers to coined terms, not self-described movements. The guideline suggests that terms that aren't defined by secondary sources should be described by a suitable phrase instead of the term itself, but to do that here would only create confusion, because most people identify the movement more in terms of its name than in terms of its beliefs.

The issue of the definition of the movement seems to have been discussed for quite a long time without any real consensus being reached. The reason for this IMO is not because there are a shortage of references so much but rather because the movement has a vested interest in being defined as broadly as possible.

Thus, the definition in the article is non-neutral. A cursory glance at the references provided by User:Cs32en leads me to the conclusion that the core belief of the movement is that the US government was involved in the planning of the attacks. Truthers often protest this, claiming that they are simply asking questions, when in fact the questions are leading and are specifically designed to encourage the listener to leap to the conclusion that elements of the US government planned or helped plan the 9/11 attacks.

How do we address this question without original research? I suggest that we augment the current definition with the claim "the US government was behind the attacks" is common or typical or universal among 9/11 truthers. This should also help alleviate the problem of the movement being classified in such a way that many people who have no wish to be identified with it seem to be caught up in the current overly broad definition.

Next question: In what sense is the movement cohesive? I would describe the movement as a collection of believers in the concept that the US government was behind the 9/11 attacks. Some of these people are providers of content and have crafted explanations for the attacks. Others have picked out a particular such explanation and have chosen to believe in it. Agreement between these people varies from theory to theory. The members of the movement take comfort that there are many others who believe that the government's version of the events of 9/11 is incorrect, even though they may disagree on specifics. E.g. at least one of the sources above pointed out that a symposium has been held among theorists with competing views. Truthers also take comfort from claims that the movement is larger than it really is.

How do we describe the movement in the article? We should be able to describe the movement in a more neutral way than I just have, with plenty of sources to back it up. I don't currently have a clear idea of how this can be done, but perhaps someone else does.

I hope I've provided plenty of ideas that will help give others the insight to reach consensus if nothing else. Note that I'm a skeptic who is hostile to the movement, but I would like to see the article and article title preserved in spite of the fact that coming up with a correct definition of the movement is difficult. There are of course plenty of statements in the article that need sources or else should be deleted, and most of these are already marked [citation needed]. Billebrooks (talk) 07:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Independent sources for Scholars for 9/11 Truth

I've posted a list of independent sources for the organization Scholars for 9/11 Truth at Talk:Scholars for 9/11 Truth#Independent sources for Scholars for 9/11 Truth.  Cs32en  14:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

re recent edits by User:Eleland

I have undone these edits by User:Eleland due to the following concerns:

1st edit: No it does not imply a 'cover-up' it implies possible negligence, which is within the scope of the positions of the 9/11 Truth Movement.

If that is so, it is wholly irrelevant to my point. This is an article about the 9/11 truth movement, not about possible negligence by George Bush. This article includes information directly about the movement, not about things which allegedly imply other things which are "within the scope of the positions" of the movement. The sentence removed was completely out of place in a section about the history of the truth movement. It was sourced to a piece which doesn't mention the truth movement. It is straightforward WP:OR#SYN violation, as I wrote in my edit summary. <eleland/talkedits> 13:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed the lede of the article? 9/11 Truth movement is the collective name of organizations and individuals that question whether the United States government was either negligent... accepting that interpretation leads to the conclusion that the investigation is itself a 'truth movement' effort. Admittedly I can understand if you take that to be a spurious argument. I agree that the section needs rewriting. Unomi (talk) 14:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

2nd edit If there are chronology problems, please fix them. Removal of information should be the last resort, as with any article.

Again, you're ignoring the substance of my edit summary. The problem is that the whole paragraph was nothing but a prose-list of 9/11 conspiracy books, the only sources being the Amazon sales pages for those books. It was borderline spam. The fact that it was also out of chronology just goes to drive the point home.

If you want to include something like this, you must, repeat must, cite sources which specifically demonstrate that those books are important to the history of the movement. For example, I'm sure you could find many good sources discussing the importance of L'Effroyable imposture in founding the movement... but of course the section didn't mention that book, because the particular faction of the 9/11 truth movement which WP:OWNs this page is embarrassed by it. The section was nothing more than a list of books which someone likes and wants to promote, masquerading as information about the history of the movement. <eleland/talkedits> 13:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I was not involved in editing these sections, you are correct that it needs stronger sourcing.Unomi (talk) 14:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

3rd edit Chuck Schumer is apparently responding to a question regarding efforts here (in New York) to establish a new 9/11 investigation. while Kirsten Gillibrand is responding to the question of a new investigation these 2 questions are both taken to be in the context of The initiative would allow the voters of New York City to sanction a new investigation of 9/11, an investigation with teeth, by NYC CAN. I agree that a direct link is not stated unambiguously in the reference. Perhaps the quotes should be moved somewhere else in the article? Unomi (talk) 13:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The quotes probably do not belong anywhere, but I'll let that pass. The point is that neither quote is about the group "New York City Coalition for Accountability," but they were misleadingly placed in the section for "New York City Coalition for Accountability," in effect lending this group more legitimacy and import than it actually has. (Furthermore I have questions about the reliability of the source, which is an opinion piece in a free weekly - okay, a larger and more respectable free weekly than most, but still.

For that matter, how do we know that the "New York City Coalition for Accountability" even matters at all? We don't. We don't have any sources demonstrating that they are anything other than a few local fringe activists. I can't find anything on Google News - which even indexes a lot of fringey and conspiracy-minded sites - except for this one piece already cited. I'm deleting the whole section. <eleland/talkedits> 13:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough :) Unomi (talk) 14:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Claims of Antisemitism

The sentence in "adherents" stating that anti-semites have joined the movement should be allowed to have a response and not have it removed with the claim that 9/11 websites are "non-notable" or "unreliable." The fact is that a number of groups and websites do state very clearly on their websites that they reject such claims. The links are to pages which have existed for a long time as shown on archive. To post such an inflammatory statement and not allow any response seems POV to try to paint members as tolerant of anti-semites. A lawsuit against Glenn Beck for defamation has already started by an activist in Florida. Reader2010 (talk) 19:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Your latest addition to this article has nothing to do with your rationale above, nor is it in immediate proximity to the text you're complaining about. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The whole issue is that 9/11 truthers are antisemities. It's only logical to hear it from the websites themselves. Even Chip Berlet just said that the 9/11 truth movement has done a good job of separating themselves from anti-semites on Fresh Air today. 76.102.212.231 (talk) 02:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The added text says absolutely nothing about being antisemites. What the censored are you talking about. You (Reader) may have an arguement, but the added text is not relevant to that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The text says:

Adherents of the 9/11 Truth movement come from diverse social backgrounds.[1][19][22] Many adherents are politically liberal, while the movement also includes people on the right, especially anti-government libertarians.[3][16][22] According to Christopher Hodapp and Alice Von Kannon, anti-Semites have joined the movement,[23] and accusations of anti-Semitism have been directed against the 9/11 Truth movement.[24]

The sentence that Arthur Rubin keeps deleting appears to respond to the claim about anti-semites in this movement:

Several truth movement websites and organizations maintain statements and pages explicitly rejecting Holocaust Denial, anti-semitism and other forms of racism.[25][26][27]

I see no problem here with allowing the sentence.

207.101.231.2 (talk) 20:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. The section you readded did not touch the sentence with [25][26][27], although it probably should be removed as synthesis. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Intro Paragraph

I think the intro paragraph should mention a broader explanation for possible government motives in addition to the content currently existing. For example, it should mention the possibility of the attacks as being false flags carried out by the US government working in collaboration with Islamic extremists/terrorists to carry out a New World Order or world-government of the sort Alex Jones (radio host) elaborates on. At the moment, the article only says: "Motives given include the use of the attacks to initiate the launch of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and in creating the opportunities to curtail civil liberties."72.240.113.27 (talk) 02:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the motives as mentioned in the intro section are pretty narrow, and other possibilities have been considered which are not mentioned there. The example that you are proposing appears to be adding additional specifics rather than generalizing. For example, the possibility exists that the government was not involved at all, and any appearance of wrongdoing by the government was actually just incompetence. Or there's the speculation that Silverstein was involved to collect insurance money. In searching for the truth on the matter, all reasonable possibilities (supported by credible evidence) can be on the table, but Wikipedia shouldn't try to list them in the Truth movement intro. I'd prefer to see any conjecture in the intro (if it must be there) kept as lean and generalized as possible. If something is well-supported by reliable source (specifically in association with the Truth movement), then some generalized mention of conjecture is warranted in the interest of neutral POV. Wildbear (talk) 04:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

claim

Changed speculate to claim in opening.--Ihaveabutt (talk) 16:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Butt see [14].--Ethelh (talk) 01:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

"Speculate" isn't that great in this context, either. I have to say that I don't like "claim", per WP:WTA#Claim, but "say" doesn't seem adequate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Changed to "state". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Link to Crank (person)

Crank (person) describes the use of a certain word (if not, its lemma needs to be changed), not the characteristics of the person that is being called a crank by those who use this term. "Crank" itself is a pejorative term, as the article Crank (person) says, so linking to this lemma is a violation of WP:NPOV. "Crank" is also not the term used to refer to members of the 9/11 Truth movement by the majority of reliable sources. (A publication of the German Bauer Media Group, TV Hören und Sehen, has recently described David Ray Griffin as an "expert on terrorism" [15].)  Cs32en  12:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Addition: Even the content of the article Crank (person) does not seem to be relevant for this article, because the large majority of members of the 9/11 Truth movement do not make scientific claims, i.e. claims about the general properties of the observable universe, that are considered to be wrong by the scientific community. They are making claims about a single event (which are considered to be wrong by many experts). Most members of the 9/11 Truth movement use the same physical laws as everybody else to analyse the event, and the dispute concerning their research is mostly about whether they have applied these laws in a correct way. It is not about the laws of physics (or any other science) themselves. However, Crank (person) is an article about people who believe in pseudoscientific theories.  Cs32en  12:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

In fact, we shouldn't like to that article at all until someone fixes it. The lede is all OR, not supported by the cited reference. The principal definitions provided are not found in any reputable dictionary. The current Wikipedia definitions are about belief. The definitive dictionary definition (Merriam Webster) is about behavior -- crankiness, which is bad temper. The relevant secondary definitions are about eccentricity, which is another form of behavior, and undue concern over particular phenomenon, which is not relevant here. The other commonly used definition refers to a mild form of terrorism -- e.g. "crank phone calls," which is not even mentioned. See also dictionary dot com. None of their definitions talks about unpopular beliefs or about beliefs at all. On the other hand, Buford Furrow, who just renounced his previous beliefs from prison, would be considered to have engaged in crank behavior.

Someone mentioned, in one of the comments, that someone else might find the definition to be "Fair Game" to a Scientologist. This might give a clue as to where the bizarre definition comes from. I haven't read the Dictionary of Scientology, but some of the definitions have been quoted elsewhere, and it clearly is not a RELIABLE SOURCE for anything on Wikipedia.

The vast majority of moral authorities in the United States would object to the use of this term at all as a noun. It is nothing but name-calling. See also the discussion of "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor" in Martin Luther's Shorter Cathecism, which most Americans would find authoritative on that matter. Wikipedia should not permit blatantly immoral commentary.

There seems to be, perhaps, a specialized use of the word as jargon in certain of the easier academic disciplines, but that isn't properly referenced either. Wowest (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Robert Fisk

I do think that calling Robert Fisk a 'member' of the 'movement' is ridiculous. The two articles linked to make clear that Fisk does not think that the 9/11 commission was exhaustive enough, and that there are still many questions that have to be asked about 9/11 (which is unquestionably true). But he also makes crystal clear in the articles linked to that he is not a 'conspiracy theorist' and that he does NOT accept the various theories put about by the 9/11 'truth' movement. This makes him very different from the people he is bracketed with, such as Steven E. Jones, Jim Hoffman, Richard Gage, Dylan Avery, all of whom actively promote a conspiracy as I understand it. I think Fisk's name should be deleted from this list.