Talk:9/11 conspiracy claims regarding Jews or Israel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive[edit]

Jews did WTC[edit]

There is a redirect to this page at Jews did WTC. We've had a request to delete this, on the ground that it's abusive. However, some people say that this phrase is now seen a certain amount, and feel that making it a redirect here is the right approach (similar to what is done with AIDS Kills Fags Dead). Can I get some guidance as to what to do? If there isn't consensus, can we run a poll? Thanks! Noel (talk) 02:35, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. It is abusive, and not particularly well known except amongst a small group of abusers. Jayjg (talk) 03:07, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
And along these lines, the title of this page is simply wrong. These are not conspiracy theories by Zionists about 9/11, they are conspiracy theories claiming involvement by Zionists or Jews in 9/11. A tricky issue. But this title is just wrong. The title should red: "Conspiracy theories claiming involvement by Zionists or Jews in the September 11, 2001 attacks." I would like to have a discussion of this before asking for a name change and redirect.--Cberlet 15:03, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I've been thinking the same thing. You are correct, your title seems reasonable, and the page should be moved. I don't think this should require a lot of debate, just some grunt work afterwards fixing the links. Jayjg (talk) 15:26, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The title is wrong as it stands. There are other daft theories that I have heard, such as that George Bush arranged it to get re-ellected [1], or the Jesuits arranged it as a hoax [2], and loads more - but the article concentrates on Zionists. -- Chris Q 16:50, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Is there a process for doing this name change thing?--Cberlet 18:32, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
In this case, I think waiting a little longer for other opinions is all that would be needed. If no-one objects, then move it yourself, and fix the links to the re-direct. Don't forget to check off the box for moving the Talk: page too. Jayjg (talk) 19:20, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I agree with the name change too. The current name is inaccurate. SlimVirgin 19:36, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
So do I. The current name is awkward and misleading. - Mustafaa 20:57, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well, the proposed new name is awkward too, but at least its not misleading. ;-) Jayjg (talk) 21:14, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Evidence[edit]

Mustafaa, what evidence are you referring to that was produced in support of the claims? SlimVirgin 21:26, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Read the article for full details; flawed citations were given for 2 out of the 4 claims (Claims that the allegedly absent Israelis/Jews had been warned by Israeli intelligence, Claim that Sharon stayed away because of a Shabak warning) d an accurate Haaretz citation for the fourth (Claim that five Israelis were filming the event) Mustafaa 21:34, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Instead of referring me back to the article, could you please list here on the talk page the reasons you deleted my edit that no evidence was produced in support of the claims? I am asking for this because I suspect we are using the word "evidence" differently. It would therefore help if you would list the examples that you are counting as evidence. And sorry if I'm being dense, but I don't understand what you mean by flawed citations; or what an accurate Haaretz citation has to do with evidence. SlimVirgin 21:39, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
Maybe that's the problem; by my definition, a Haaretz article saying that five Israelis were arrested filming the event is evidence that, well, five Israelis were arrested filming the event. The other citations that Al-Manar provided would also have constituted evidence, if they had been accurate. - Mustafaa 21:43, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
A "correct citation" would be "New York Times, March 11, 2005, p A1" if written to cite an article in the NYT that appeared on that date and on that page. The issue of correct citation is unrelated to what counts as evidence in support of a claim of the kind we're discussing. The production of a Haaretz article saying that five Israels were arrested is not evidence that five Israelis were arrested. It is evidence only that Haaretz did, indeed, publish such an article. And nothing constitutes evidence if it turns out to be false, by definition, and certainly not a news agency or newspaper reference. I am going to reinsert my edit. SlimVirgin 21:52, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
Don't attempt to impose your POV regarding the definition of "evidence". Whether you define the article itself or the Haaretz reporter's testimony as "evidence", five Israelis were arrested, as this article makes clear; it's not just Haaretz that confirms this either, again as this article makes clear. - Mustafaa 21:56, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, what makes you believe that the Haaretz article turned out to be false? Do you have evidence for that claim, or is that just an unconsidered preconception? - Mustafaa 21:58, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The arrest of five Israelis is not evidence that the Mossad carried out the attacks, or that 4,000 Israelis didn't turn up to work (because they were all standing outside filming, perhaps). And, as I recall, these arrests were fully explained. SlimVirgin 22:00, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
Of course it's not, but that misses the point. The conspiracy theorists made at least 4 specific claims about the attacks detailed here. 2 are false (including the claim that 4,000 Israelis didn't turn up to work), 1 is uncertain, and 1 (that these arrests took place) is true. - Mustafaa 22:04, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To clarify, I can think of two alternative statements that I think cover what you probably mean:

  • "No evidence was ever produced to substantiate the claim that 4,000 Israelis didn't turn up to work."
  • "The alleged evidence put forward to substantiate the claim that Mossad did it was rejected by most investigators as false in some cases and irrelevant in others." - Mustafaa 22:08, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
But the arrests don't constitute evidence. On day one, it might, I suppose, be regarded as "evidence" of Israeli involvement that five Israelis were arrested filming, though even that's a stretch. The Mossad is the best intelligence service in the world, by a very long margin: do you suppose they would draw attention to themselves in this way after being involved in that attack? These men claimed to be tourists, and there's every reason to believe that judging by their behavior: their explanation was that they were laughing because now America would understand what it feels like to be attacked. They acted in a very immature manner, which the Mossad does not do, at least not in public in the middle of an operation. At least one former intelligence officer, Vince Cannistrato, former head of counter-terrorism for the CIA, has gone on the record that there are some in the U.S. intelligence community who believe the five were Mossad agents in New York as part of a covert operation watching Islamists. But Cannistraro is a conspiracy theorist, and earns a living from backing up reports like this for ABC News. You'll rarely find him saying of anything like this that there's nothing in it, and it's always possible to find someone in the U.S. intelligence community (and what does that mean anyway?) who will back him up. But even Cannistraro has said the arrests are not evidence of Mossad involvement in 9/11. It's fair enough, of course, to refer to this in the article as the basis (or one of them) of the involvement rumor, but it cannot be called "evidence in support of the claim", which is why I am asking to be allowed to make that clear in the introduction. SlimVirgin 22:23, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

I think part of the problem here is that we're referring to different claims. But a more fundamental problem is that "evidence" is inherently POV. Neither you nor I think that this arrest constitutes "evidence", but obviously many people do or did, and equally clearly it was put forward as such. We might say that the alleged evidence was found ridiculously irrelevant, or in other cases simply wrong, but calling it not evidence is obviously POV. - Mustafaa 22:32, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that it's POV. There are clear definitions of these words. "Evidence" is an assertion of fact or a material item offered in support of a position. A "fact" is an actual state of affairs, what is called the "referent" of a true proposition or sentence. This means that there's no such thing in the English language (or any other) as a "false fact" or "false evidence." If a proposition that was regarded as evidence turns out to be false, it means it was never evidence in the first place.
While it is true that five Israelis were arrested, that does not support the proposition that the Mossad carried out 9/11. It is simply false to make that leap, or those dozens of leaps. This article is about how those leaps were made by conspiracy theorists. But the introduction should make it quite clear that, in fact, no evidence has been produced in support of any of the claims. Some people believe evidence has been produced, but it has not, and they are harbouring false beliefs. If you're going to argue that something counts as evidence simply because some people believe it is evidence, then we'll have to go around rewriting Wikipedia. I'm arguing with you here because I feel it's important to be rigorous in an article about conspiracy theories, especially one of this magnitude. SlimVirgin 22:54, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

But your definition supports my point: each of these, true or false, were "an assertion of fact or a material item offered in support of a position". There is no such thing as a false fact, but there certainly is such a thing as false evidence (as Google suggests, and many Wikipedia articles confirm), and as inadequate evidence. - Mustafaa 23:09, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In fact, it seems that "false evidence" is a recognized legal term: [3][4][5][6]. - Mustafaa 23:30, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We had an edit conflict so I wrote the following before you posted your links. I'll look at them now.

A Google search on this matter will return what people believe, not what is correct; Wikipedia too, unfortunately. When you say there's such a thing as false evidence, it is true that one can be accused of giving false evidence, but that's because the phrase "to give evidence" means "to make a statement". One can certainly make a false statement. However, I know that the Israelis were arrested, so regarding that particular claim, it's the second point that matters, and that is, whether that can be offered in support of the position that the Mossad carried out 9/11. And it cannot. To regard the arrests as evidence for that position is to engage in the same loose thinking that caused the conspiracy theory to arise in the first place. The presence of the Israelis is either no evidence at all, or at most, it may be evidence that the Mossad was conducting a surveillance operation (but even that I strongly doubt judging by their behavior). But you can't stretch it any further than that, and that's not a question of POV; it's to do with the rules of inference. The statement "No evidence has been produced in support of these claims," is true, and you seem to agree with it, so I don't understand why you keep deleting it. SlimVirgin 23:41, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
Based on a glance at the links, I think it's, as I said above, the false representation or statement that's being referred to: evidence as is in "giving evidence". SlimVirgin 23:49, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Because we disagree on the meaning of "evidence". I think evidence means (as you put it!) "an assertion of fact or a material item offered in support of a position". Nothing in that definition carries any implication that the evidence has to be true, or that it has to carry sufficient weight; deciding a case involves weighing the evidence - true and false - and determining which portions of the evidence were most reliable and germane, not claiming that the testimonies that were true constituted evidence and the testimonies that were false did not. "Evidence" is not an honorific term; it's a descriptive one. The meaning of evidence is no different in "giving evidence" than in any other phrase; to give evidence is to make an assertion of fact or offer a material item in support of a position. - Mustafaa 23:53, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Seriously, what's wrong with saying "The alleged evidence put forward to substantiate the claim that Mossad did it was false in most cases, and rejected by most investigators as irrelevant in the remainder"? Doesn't that express what you mean anyway? - Mustafaa

I had another edit conflict there, so again the following was written before I saw your post. (We're going to have to start phoning each other before we post or something):
In the definition: "an assertion of fact or a material item offered in support of a position," you are stressing "offered," whereas I am stressing "in support of," and that is where we differ. I am arguing that the arrest of five Israelis cannot reasonably be offered "in support of" the proposition that the Mossad carried out (or was in way involved in) 9/11. If any assertion that is "offered" is to count as evidence, then I could offer my dream that it was going to happen, and you'd have to call that evidence. So clearly, the key term here is not "offered." The key term (and perhaps this is simply a bad definition) is "in support of" and I could no more offer my dream, than you could offer the arrest of the Israelis, "in support of" any suggestion of pre-knowledge of 9/11. (The arrest of five Israelis is only regarded as "evidence" by the woolly minded because some people seem to think that all Israelis work for the Mossad.)
However, as we clearly disagree, I'm going to find an authoritative source who has said there is no evidence, and I will attribute the statement instead. I'm currently looking through the 9/11 Commission Report, which I've just discovered has no index (!), so I may be some time. SlimVirgin 00:09, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Well, that would certainly work. As I see it, "in support of" still covers this; "circumstantial evidence", after all, is considered a type of evidence, and its weight varies according to the surrounding circumstances. If evidence were restricted to proof (or to truth!), then determining what constituted evidence in the first place would be the main job of any trial. But enough semantics for one day... - Mustafaa 00:25, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please accept my argument that the word "evidence" cannot mean "any assertion offered." Otherwise anything said by any person would have to count as evidence. Regarding circumstantial evidence, its weight is determined by the rules of inference, as with any evidence. (And I have not argued that evidence is the same as proof.) SlimVirgin 00:30, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
"No evidence has been produced that substantiates the various claims." Thanks, Chip. SlimVirgin 00:32, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Slim, I think you are wrong. "Evidence" is not "proof". It is the matter put forward that might determine proof. In a court of criminal law, the "evidence" is what goes to show guilt or innocence (thence its name, of course). It is "any assertion offered"! It's whatever is supposed to show guilt, innocence, or in this case, factuality of a proposition or otherwise. I understand your problem here. Mustafaa wishes to say "Evidence has been presented"; you wish to say that nothing has been proved. I'm not going to edit the article, but I think you should recognise that Mustafaa is right here. The article should say that evidence has been produced. But it can equally say that the evidence has been discredited, or is not corroborated, or whatever. Both POVs can and should be included, not just yours.Dr Zen 00:39, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, I didn't argue that evidence was the same as proof, and in fact, I specifically said above that I was not arguing that. I am simply arguing against Mustafaa's claim that any assertion offered counts as evidence. If I dream on 8/11 that the Mossad is going to attack the WTC, and on 9/11 it happens, my dream is not "evidence" that the Mossad did it. Please don't get the legal notion of giving evidence mixed up with this discussion, because anything can be offered in evidence in a court of law. Whether it is regarded as evidence by the judge is another matter. The courts, like me, separate the offering of the assertion from the value of it. SlimVirgin 00:51, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
Mustafaa changed Cberlet's compromise of "No evidence has been produced to substantiate the various claims." to "No evidence has been produced that substantiates the claim that the perpetrators were somehow connected to Israel," which I even edited yesterday without noticing he'd changed it because I was so tired of talking about it. I've changed it back because Cberlet's version covers all the claims, including that Israel knew but didn't warn, which is a different allegation to the perpetrators being connected. SlimVirgin 02:08, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
That doesn't work either. That phrasing would cover "all the claims" including that the five art students were there (a claim that I for one was originally very sceptical about!), not just the claims about Israel. I thought my phrasing covered "that Israel knew but didn't warn", but that can easily be added. - Mustafaa 06:43, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Title[edit]

Have a look at the naming guidelings. Jews did WTC is the best name I can think of, expressing the subject clear;y and quickly and using the most common term. Try googling various ideas your having. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 21:29, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sam, that is just plain bizarre. No reputable encyclopedia would ever produce such a heading. Nor would the heading "Earth is Flat" be appropriate.--Cberlet 00:13, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Flat Earth is a perfectly acceptable name for a page, as is Jews did 9/11 or some such. Topic headings don't need to be neutral or factually accurate, they need to be expressive of what is being discussed. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions. Names like Conspiracy theories claiming involvement by Zionists or Jews in the September 11, 2001 attacks are absurd. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 14:06, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Flat Earth is different from Earth is Flat. The current name is cumbersome. The previous name was not accurate. Jews did 9/11 is offensive to many people for good reason. So would be the heading Muslims are Terrorists. In a printed encyclopedia, this page would be a subsection of larger article such as Conspiracy theory or Anti-Semitism or September 11, 2001 attacks. There is already a page 9/11 conspiracy theories, of which this would be a logical subsection. But Wikipedia conventions say don't make article headings hierarchical. Sometimes, however, this is not the best plan (the conventions ARE suggestions). 9/11 conspiracy theories (involvement by Jews and Zionists) or 9/11 conspiracy theories (claims about Jews and Zionists)would work better than the current name, for example. But the shorter 9/11 conspiracy theories (Jews and Zionists) leaves it unclear as to whether these are claims by "Jews and Zionists" or claims about (Jews and Zionists). And note that the casual linkage of "Jews and Zionists" is itself problematic given historic stereotyping.
I agree and I'm worried about the casual grouping of Jews with Zionists. There are also Christian Zionists and Jews who are not Zionists, I think the category is careless and could be dangerous. -Anon. 22:21 31 May 2005
There is a larger issue of the use of "Conspiracy theory" as a prefix for other articles. A more NPOV approach would be to create a set of subpages that start out with "Conspiracy claims." For example Conspiracy claims (about Freemasons) or Conspiracy claims (about Arabs and Muslims) or Conspiracy claims (about Jews and Zionists). I am happy to keep discussing this and have no attachment to the current name. I do care about headings that are either not accurate, are offensive, or both.
So what do people think of 9/11 conspiracy theories (claims about Jews and Zionists)? --Cberlet 15:17, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
That would be better. The key is trying to create an article title that someone might actually type into the search bar. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 16:10, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'd feel happier merging this page into 9/11 conspiracy theories. This page and title are inherently anti-Semitic, because we're reflecting the ideas of people who make no distinction between Jews, Zionists, Israelis, and the Mossad; and who then see that fictional group behind everything that goes wrong in the world. This is very much a Reichstag situation: the communists did it, but international Jewry caused it, then stood outside laughing and filming. Because we've chosen to give these ideas in relation to 9/11 their own page, we are structurally buying into that ideology. But NPOV is being (mis)interpreted to mean that we can't signal with the title that the ideas are nonsense, so instead we structurally reflect the views of the conspiracy theorists; and in terms of content, we're then expected to be even-handed between the truth and nonsense, another misinterpretion of NPOV but a widespread one. Because we're not allowed to be intellectually rigorous, the best thing would be to merge this page back in with the other conspiracy theories. SlimVirgin 23:44, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
Wow, that stikes me as the inverse of NPOV, no wonder we cross swords so often. As soon as censorship like that becomes policy (which I assume it never will), I'll find a new hobby. The reason why I like encyclopedias is the diversity and quality (read impartiality, i.e. NPOV and citations) of information. If you want to remove those things, expect vigorous opposition. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 01:11, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
NeutralPOV doesnt mean "all" points of view, but means NO points of view! Wikipedia does not have a PIPOV (pan-inclusive points of view) policy! Quit your fkn bickering and try creating a title of an ENCYCLOPEDIC nature. Damn. Ƿōdenhelm (talk) 18:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
You call it censorship; I call it being intelligent. I'd like to see how loudly you'd scream at the title "So-called white nationalists are really just racist, supremacist scum," given that you're currently trying to prevent editors from calling even David Duke a white supremacist. Yet with a straight face you propose the title "Jews did WTC," supposedly in the interests of clarity because it might be typed into a search engine. So might "Sex with little girls." SlimVirgin 01:35, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
If "So-called white nationalists are really just racist, supremacist scum," was a popular catchphrase, I'd support it at least being a redirect. "sex with little girls" would probably offend you less than Girllove. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 02:11, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Oh great. I just discovered this page: Misinformation and rumors about the September 11, 2001 attacks --Cberlet 01:31, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Ashley, in case you wonder why I deleted your edit about the five Israelis still being in custody: one of them gave an interview about prison conditions, but they are not in fact still there. The article was a little unclear. SlimVirgin 13:11, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
When were they released? What's your source for this? —Ashley Y 23:15, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)
They were released Nov 20-21 2001; see [7]. Terry 00:51, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"I'd feel happier merging this page into 9/11 conspiracy theories. This page and title are inherently anti-Semitic, because we're reflecting the ideas of people who make no distinction between Jews, Zionists, Israelis, and the Mossad; and who then see that fictional group behind everything that goes wrong in the world. This is very much a Reichstag situation: the communists did it, but international Jewry caused it, then stood outside laughing and filming. Because we've chosen to give these ideas in relation to 9/11 their own page, we are structurally buying into that ideology. But NPOV is being (mis)interpreted to mean that we can't signal with the title that the ideas are nonsense, so instead we structurally reflect the views of the conspiracy theorists; and in terms of content, we're then expected to be even-handed between the truth and nonsense, another misinterpretion of NPOV but a widespread one. Because we're not allowed to be intellectually rigorous, the best thing would be to merge this page back in with the other conspiracy theories. SlimVirgin 23:44, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)"

Huh? We are signalling with this title that the ideas are nonsense. What do you think "conspiracy theories" means to most people? And this page offers something much better than merely saying "these ideas are nonsense", which would change no one's mind; it's examining the ideas one by one, detail by detail, and knocking the whole structure of the theory down. Nothing on this page is being "even-handed between the truth and nonsense"; rather, unusually among refutations of these claims, it's written in an encyclopedic rather than propagandistic manner. Instead of assuming that all adherents of the claims are evil idiots who deserve to be talked about but not to, it explains point-by-point exactly why they're wrong and what the facts are. Oh, and it provides a detailed chronology of how this claim spread. - Mustafaa 07:10, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Your edit of the intro has improved it; thank you. I see some parts of the article as you describe, but other parts not. For example, "A more ambiguous claim that the Mossad had been shadowing the perpetrators and had advance warning of these attacks but failed to share it has also been made." The words "more ambigous" suggest that, though there may be no truth in some other claims, they might be truth in this one, and then we go on to repeat the claims uncritically. In the section about the five Israelis, which is written with a degree of breathless excitement, we link to a Glasgow Sunday Herald article (and this is not a good newspaper: it is sensationalist and conspiratorial), the intro of which includes the words: "massive spy ring" "knew that al-Qaeda planned a devastating attack,' "stormy debate that raged across the world's media ..."
Anyone who has spent time in the newsroom of a major news organization will tell you that rumors like this are ten a penny, and not only sourced to lunatics but often starting with careless reporters. Before the Internet, these were not repeated by major news organizations and tended to die out, but now they spread instantly. I'm not saying we shouldn't write about them, because they're out there, but it requires a certain tone. Sadly, every airing of these theories, no matter how carefully rebuffed, causes another few hundred fools to believe them, and I see no reason for this conspiracy theory, of all the others, to have its own page. SlimVirgin 08:30, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
The best antidote to false or dubious claims spreading are pages like this that examine them carefully and without sneering. If this page links to a hyperbolic article, then let us edit the text to point out that while using colorful language the newspaper article offered little solid evidence. That way people learn how to read critically.
There are plenty of published sources that support text like: "Critics charge that many of these claims involve language that makes no distinction between Jews, Zionists, Israelis, the Israeli government, and the Mossad. In addition, critics point out these claims often echo historic antisemitic alegations about vast global plots by Jews."
I would, however, still like to change the name to 9/11 conspiracy theories (claims about Jews and Zionists). --Cberlet 13:24, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
If it has to have its own page, and it seems I'm in a minority of one here, then sure, I'd have no problem with that title. SlimVirgin 13:44, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)


The title is somewhat inaccurate given that the claims center around Israel and not Jews. warned by Israeli intelligence Claim that Sharon stayed away Claim that five Israelis Israel had some amount of advance knowledge. How about changing it to "Claims of Israeli involvement in 9/11", and lets drop the conspiracy theory since Claim that five Israelis were filming the event has been substantiated. --Uncle Bungle 16:45, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories is accurate. These are swirling rumors; they don't even have the status of clear claims. I'd certainly be happier having Jews and Zionists removed from the title. SlimVirgin 17:17, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

I would accept either

or

I agree that "conspiracy theories" is a bit POV, but as I've said before, I don't think POV needs to be a big factor in article titling. Mentioning Jews and Zionists is quite important tho, since those are the terms used by people who believe in this stuff. BTW, is there an article for the theory that Bush caused 9/11 intentionally? See /infowars.com/ [Unreliable fringe source?] or Alex Jones. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 17:43, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've seen all of Jones's films, to the best of my knowledge he never mentions "Jews" and may have, upon occasion, mentioned "Zionists". It is my understanding that he considers Israel as a key player in the New World Order. I think that when supporters of these claims refer to "Jews" or "Zionists" they are referring specifically to Israel. I can not say for certain, but I have reviewed a good deal of material on the matter.
Maybe we should call a vote then? There has been much discussion about how inapropriate the current title is, and there are two perfectly good replacements above. --Uncle Bungle 18:06, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Clearly these are conspiracy theories, and they clearly involve Jews as well (since the conspiracy theorists are not careful to distinguish between Jews and Zionists). Given that, I think 9/11 conspiracy theories (claims about Jews and Zionists) is probably the most accurate title. Jayjg (talk) 18:33, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"what was interpreted as cries of joy and mockery." clearly thats not a theory, and clearly it involves homosapiens. Given that, I think A collection of 9/11 conspiracy theories and cold hard facts (claims about Jews, Zionists, Human Beings, the Mossad, Odigo and Urban Moving Company, new to wiki pedia the whole article in the title! --Uncle Bungle 20:23, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'd prefer the title with conspiracy theories. SlimVirgin 19:05, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to say alex jones suggests anything involving Israel, jews or zionists, I only mentioned it as an alternative theory on the same subject, curious as to if it has a page. I oppose a vote, btw, I think we could rapidly achieve consensus without one. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 21:14, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My misunderstanding. I'm opposed to both "Conspiracy theory" and "Jews and Zionists", but if I had to choose one to include, it would be "Conspiracy theories" because most of the claims are. I think "Jews and Zionists" isn't relevant, because most of these claims are directed against Israel as a state. My two cents. --Uncle Bungle 21:26, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Most of the underlying cites talk about the state of Israel, Mossad, Zionists, the government of Israel, Jews, and vast Jewish conspiracies in a rather undifferentiated conflation. Almost none of the claims turn out to have even a tiny shred of evidence behind them. Almost all of them allege a conspiracy. How about 9/11 conspiracy claims regarding Jews or Israel) for a title?--Cberlet 22:57, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. SlimVirgin 23:00, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
That's the best title yet, and significantly shorter than the current one. Jayjg (talk) 23:19, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Accurate and reasonably neutral, I like it. --Uncle Bungle 00:20, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy claims regarding Jews or Israel would be fine (w/o the extra ")" ;) (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 13:47, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I never claimed I was a good typist. :-( --Cberlet 13:57, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I made the move and began fixing the various redirects and "What links here" pages, then Wiki began popping error messages. I can't seem to edit anything. Alas, I am also going to be away from a computer for a bunch of days. I will pop back on soonest and see if there are more corrections to make (hint, hint). --Cberlet 21:11, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I cleaned up a bunch, including the worst ones (double re-directs). There are still a few to go, but it's slow for me too. Maybe you can get them when you get back. Jayjg (talk) 23:32, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Debate on "Conspiracy Theory" in Wiki page titles[edit]

There is a new page, Wikipedia:Conspiracy_theory where there is going to be a larger discussion of the use of the term "Conspiracy Theory" in Wiki titles. It would be ideal if people with a variety of viewpoints joined the discussion on that page, since a number of page titles are likely to be discussed, and name changes debated.--Cberlet 19:54, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


A proposal has ben put forward to require renaming of all articles that have the phrase "conspiracy theory" in their title, due to what proponents claim is the inherent POV of that phrase. Please see Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory. A vote is occurring at Wikipedia talk:Conspiracy theory. -Willmcw 05:50, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Arab bashing[edit]

It is hard enough to deal with the issue of antisemitism in a responsible way on this page without having to deal with Arab bashing. Deleted: "Ironically, the first images on the news from the Middle East after the 9/11 attacks were Arabs cheering and dancing in the streets in celebration of the collapse of the towers." Dubious claim. Has no place on this page. --Cberlet 00:34, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Merge this article with 9/11 conspiracy theories[edit]

Is there any reason why this article should not be merged with 9/11 conspiracy theories (and preferably turned from list into prose)? →Raul654 18:14, September 4, 2005 (UTC)