Template talk:911ct: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:44, 22 January 2007

This Template

While I appreciate that people want to create things on here, there is no reason to create multiple 9/11 CT templates on single pages, especially when each one has different information. It is confusing and misrepresentative. I urge you to either delete the old 9/11 CT template, or consider merging this one into that one and work on that one. We should not have 2 and certainly not 2 which both claim to be a way to navigate the info but with different links to the same apparent info. Again, I'm not trying to be rude, I just feel strongly that we don't need more than one template. bov 21:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What would be logical here is to state explicitly the other templates you are referencing. Without that a discussion is hard. I will refer you to the logic that was used when this template was created here. Fiddle Faddle 21:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The templates serve two purposes. I personally like them both. It is not confusing at all and multiple templates are used in lots of articles. --Tbeatty 22:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If they are not useful, people will choose not to use them. I think they are useful for navigating through related pages. Readers may not be sure exactly what they want, and this presents them with some related pages to consider. It also saves us from trying to keep in sync the 'See also' sections of related pages. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'll add a few more of my own templates that say what I want them to say to some other pages too. I didn't realize it was so easy to do on here. Thanks. bov 07:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be reading into this template something which is simply not present. It is NPOV, makes no comment, and is designed and intended simply as a navigation aid at the foot of relevant articles. It is an aid, no more and no less, to people who wish to navigate easily between articles. It is not designed to compete with any other template, nor to take the place of any other template. So far, apart from this one, there is no template which is suitable for all articles. Template:911tm, for example, is solely to do with the Truth Movement. Where an article is not a part of that movement then that template cannot be deployed, but this one is wholly appropriate, precisely because its intent is to gather all articles together.

It is by no means completely loaded with all relevant articles yet. How can it be? It is a work in progress, as is Wikipedia. Instead of spending your time removing it, why not take a different view and work to enhance or complete it? Fiddle Faddle 07:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Popular Culture

The (currently sole) article in the popular culture segment links to a mainstream TV series that takes on issues and tends to lampoon them. The show demonstrates that 9/11 CTs are in the popular culture. That it takes a view on them does not make it irrelevant here. The template is designed and intended to navigate to all articles under the umbrella without expressing any comment upon them.

If the CT is valid then it will prevail. If invalid then it will not. Robust theories withstand lampooning by TV shows. Fiddle Faddle 22:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So do completely absurd ones, like the controlled demolition theory, Elvis being abducted by aliens, or the various Kennedy conspiracy theories. Lampooning is not an indicator of anything other than existence, espoecially it is not an indicator that the theories are in any way credible. Guy (Help!) 10:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you completely :) Most, if not all, of the various theories and hypotheses are the products of minds who will not accept the simple answer, even when it stands up and bites them in the backside. Fiddle Faddle 11:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a proposal to change the title of this template

I am not yet sure what that proposal is, but I have asked the main objector to come here and discuss it. When we have a consensus we will know what to do. Fiddle Faddle 22:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked many times that the main objector, Bov, comes here and builds a consensus. This is evident from his talk page. Instead he has devoted time to removal of the template, and, earlier today I was forced to put a vandalism warning in his talk page for his edit to the template that surgically removed two characters.

I believe most strongly that a consensus is the only route forward, and I reiterate the invitation to Bov to come forward and build one here. Fiddle Faddle 11:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Design considerations

While awaiting the proposal, here are the design considerations. These will assist when reaching a consensus on the wording within the template:

Be a simple, foot of the page, navigational template
Be inclusive. Allow all articles which are conspiracy theories and hypotheses to be linked
Be suitable for inclusion on any article about a proponent of, or a supporter of one or any of the conspiracy theories, whatever their other interests or reputations
Be NPOV in deployment. It is recognised that a template itself can imbue POV to an article.
Not be mutually exclusive with other templates
Neither validate nor invalidate the conspiracy theories
Include popular culture insofar as it acknowledges the theories, whether in favour or against.

I may have been the main creator of this template, but I am not emotionally committed to anything except improving it, both in content and in deployment. I simply created it, opened it for comment, accepted those comments and then deployed it. Fiddle Faddle 23:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be suitable for inclusion on any article about a proponent of, or a supporter of one or any of the conspiracy theories, whatever their other interests or reputations

Isn't it interesting how a CT nav template must include ALL ideas and proponents no matter what relevance or background or even absurdity, while non-CT templates would have criteria for inclusion? This is called discrediting by association and functions to mix nonsense - space weapons, nukes, holograms, UFOs - with the real work - scientific experiments of the evidence - to dilute the real work and discredit it. Not too difficult to understand, is it? 152.131.10.133 22:41, 17 January 2007 o(UTC)

What would be more constructive is to make a positive and helpful suggestion. A template that connects the full portfolio ranging frm lamebrains to intelligentsia, from ludicrous concepts to potentially justifiable research is perfectly valid Fiddle Faddle 23:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the solution, but it is worth recognizing that frequently the distinction is blurred, in both directions, to distort issues of credibility. I would suggest that conspiracy theory requires some element of unfounded speculation and would exclude the (few) cases of questions genuinely unanswered. Peter Grey 00:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the heading lines could solve that. Some judicious rewording there should please the majority of proponents and opponents of "non mainstream arguments". After all, nothing is set in stone. Fiddle Faddle 00:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for helpful suggestions, don't include the hoaxes and the trashing of the questions, as you do now. Meyssan and the Pentagon missile are old news and no longer promoted. The Urinal episode is derogatory towards those questioning the truth, however much you may consider it necessary to have a "pop culture" area to wedge it in there. Does the September 11th navigation box include a pop culture interpretation of its theories, or pop culture trashings of the viewpoints of the government? Nope. Why? Because promoting cartoons that trash the content (or are considered debatable on the issue of whether they support or trash) isn't supportive of the content. Just because 9/11 truth is mentioned someplace, doesn't make that source a relevant "source", it makes it so that more people can see how another corporate media venue trashes those who question. If people disagree on it, it shouldn't be on there. This is what Tom Harrison has learned on here, that he can insert anything that trashes the 9/11 truth movement as long as it says the words "conspiracy theory" in it. This is how the trashing is already done on here all over the place, so why perpetuate it? Remove the old hoaxes and the mainstream trashings. Step one. bov 01:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you don't get to choose a "favorable" rendition of the "Truth Movement". It is what it is, since it is a loosely defined conglomeration of persons and groups. It includes all takers, everything from your favored theory to the ones you dismiss. You don't get to determine what is relevant or irrelevant. If a source describes a person or a theory as part of the movement, then it's in. Further, if we remove all of the hoaxes as you request, there wouldn't be a single mention of the movement or theories anywhere in Wikipedia. Morton Devonshire^Yo 01:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see any difference between an old hoax and a new one - both are paranoia-driven fantasy, and both have been refuted. On the other hand, a South Park parody of conspiracy theories is, obviously, not itself a promotion of conspiracy theory. Peter Grey 01:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The connection between conspiracy theory and popular culture is important. It is one of the main areas of academic research, as in Mark Fenster's work. Conspiracy theories are of interest as sociological phenomena. They are things people believe, and that is/should be how we write about them. The section on popular culture should be expanded, if not in the template then in the relevent articles.

Certainly Meyssan's work and the influence it has had are important and need to be presented.

Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

South Park

Until someone starts adding aouth park episodes to the Holocaust article I will remove the south part episode from this one. This is a template not for anything that has ever contained a joke, bit, comment, or article regarding 9/11 conspiracies. It is to guide readers toward connecting articles of relevance, since South Park hitler episodes do not appear on the Holocaust article, I am sure the point is understood. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 14:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it woudl be preferred that you build a consensus for that action. The logic you use is interesting, but I do not see the comparison. The South Park article is an example of how the conspiracy stuff has entered the public consciousness, and thus is valid. I oppose your action. Fiddle Faddle 14:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your opposition is noted, however since you have not refuted my statement, that is also noted. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 14:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't really see a statement to refute except with a general opposition. I'm glad you are seeking to build a consensus for your intended action. Fiddle Faddle 14:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More consensus-building here. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see the anon, Bov and myself opposing what you Tom and Morton favor. I do not see concensus for its addition. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 14:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with Nuclear, there is no place on the template for the pop culture ref. and it is inconsistent with other templates on wikipedia. There was a call for building consensus, but now that there is some, it is ignored. Who'd have guessed? bov 19:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see consensus for its removal, either. As bov opposes the existence of this template, I don't see his opinions as necessarily having the weight required to indicate that there isn't consensus for its addition. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you argued fo ronthe September 11th page, concensus to add, not remove. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 23:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's an example of how it has entered the popular consciousness. It is not, however, an individually significant case of it; it's just Yet Another Thing Vaguely Related. Adding it to the template, with its own header and so on, just makes it look disproportionately important and suggests there is some deep hidden significance to the target article that simply isn't there. Shimgray | talk | 18:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not its own header, or at least it's not meant to be; it's the header for Popular culture. It's an important part of conspiracy theory and a subject of academic study. It should stay, and be expanded. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Shimgray, since there are no other pop culture references in the article it looks as though it has a larger then needed importance and should be removed until such a section can be fully fleshed out. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 11:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the expansion

I just want to express thanks to Nuclear~~Zero~~ (sp?) for the major expansion. Looking good. Fiddle Faddle 16:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just finished adding the template to the extra articles that Nuclear~~Zero~~ added. Fiddle Faddle 18:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalisation

It's a nice template, but What's With All The Caps? --Guinnog 16:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Details! Feel free to "Wikify" Fiddle Faddle 17:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template is currently nominated for deletion

Please see ~~Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:911ct~~ here for the moved deletion discussion and make whatever comments you wish Fiddle Faddle 23:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy vs. Alternative

The template is named 911ct (for conspiracy theory). If someone wants to create a 911at (alternative theory) template, I have little objection. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no difficulty with that at all. I foresee the same issues that we have here, but with different players, however. We do not need at present to relabel the template (the {{911ct}} name, I mean. We can simply run with the different name within the template. Fiddle Faddle 07:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree I dont see the problem with having it say "alternate theory", there are things like article renames and redirects here on Wikipedia that you may want to read up on Arthur Rubin, it doesnt cause mass confusion or trouble, especially since the template is inserted into articles, people will not even see the name. If you need more information on page redirects or renames, please let me know. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 11:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing it from "conspiracy theory" to "alternative theory" changes the entire meaning of the template. (I feel "alternative" is incorrect, but that's another matter.) I consider it effectively vandalism of the articles the template is included in, whether or not that was the intent. Perhaps the templates should be deleted if we can't reach agreement as to what should be the subject of the template. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 96: / Line 96: @@
 :I see no difficulty with that at all.  I foresee the same issues that we have here, but with different players, however.  We do not need at present to relabel the template (the <nowiki>{{911ct}}</nowiki> name, I mean.  We can simply run with the different name within the template.  [[User:Timtrent|Fiddle Faddle]] 07:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 ::I agree I dont see the problem with having it say "alternate theory", there are things like article renames and redirects here on Wikipedia that you may want to read up on Arthur Rubin, it doesnt cause mass confusion or trouble, especially since the template is inserted into articles, people will not even see the name. If you need more information on page redirects or renames, please let me know. --[[User:NuclearUmpf|Nuclear]]<s>[[User:Zer0faults|Zer0]]</s> 11:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
+:::Changing it from "conspiracy theory" to "alternative theory" changes the entire meaning of the template.  (I feel "alternative" is incorrect, but that's another matter.)  I consider it effectively vandalism of the articles the template is included in, whether or not that was the intent.  Perhaps the templates should be deleted if we can't reach agreement as to what should be the subject of the template.  &mdash; [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] |  [[User_talk:Arthur_Rubin|(talk)]] 14:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)