Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning the 9/11 conspiracy theories.

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

Former good article nominee 9/11 conspiracy theories was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
March 29, 2006 Peer review Reviewed
June 3, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed
August 12, 2006 Articles for deletion Speedily kept
Current status: Former good article nominee
This article has been mentioned by a media organisation:
Emblem-important.svg
This is not a forum for general discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories.
Any such messages will be deleted.
Toolbox

The Rainbow Connection[edit]

This isn't exactly academia, but it's also not exactly pulled from the author's ass. Plenty of hyperlinks to reliable mainstream sources, though shrouded in weird humour. I'm not calling it "the truth", but next to a lot of things that have crossed this Talk Page, it is certainly worth a glance. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:14, October 14, 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on 9/11 conspiracy theories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Pravda Putin Claims[edit]

Pravda claims Putin is "threatening to reveal the truth about 9/11" but haven't seen any source beyond that. Anyone want to write a piece on that? is there enough info? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 04:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Has he been listed as another proponent of these theories? I'll bet it's nothing we haven't already heard before from other kooks. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 02:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
A little common respect is in order here. Wikipedia is not FaceBook. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 06:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Safe to say its just more nonsense from bad sources. Sounds more like urban myth looking at the very poor sources for anything connected. Earl King Jr. (talk) 09:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
It could be. But Putin has already gone along with the moon landing conspiracy nonsense, despite the fact that his KGB ancestors knew the US landed on the moon. He's been doing things like that just to spite the west. Maybe spewing the same old 9/11 conspiracy delusions will be another part of it. Or maybe it is just a rumor. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 19:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Article does not mention the most common theories correctly[edit]

Recently editors ArtifexMayhem, and Tom harrison reverted content related to alternative theories (This edit here), without giving a reasonable summary. Issues with these reverts are:

  • Current background section reads, "The impact and resulting fires caused the collapse of the Twin Towers and the destruction and damage of other buildings in the World Trade Center complex."Very unclear sentence, also appears to be unsourced. WTC7 should be linked directly, since its a very common talking point of people who question the mainstream version. My edit there is based in part on a BBC source, we can change the other reference if that is the issue.
  • The external link section should link directly to an example, otherwise why do we have the section proponents and opponents in the first place.
Do you support above article improvements, if not explain why not.
This is a paradox of the page itself. Wikipedia must follow the Ruling Party line on all subjects. The only sources it may cite are the Party-approved sources. To discuss any contending parties or ideas, Wikipedia must look through Party lenses. Wikipedia cannot link to unconventional sources. Hence, if we can find a Party review of the forbidden youtube video, we can use that. Otherwise not. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
BBC is a reliable source. Do you object to the inclusion of content sourced based on the BBC source? prokaryotes (talk) 17:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Should I presume I am the editor addressed as "you"? I was responding to the comment, "external link ... to an example". To be clear, BBC yes, "external link", no. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfarney (talkcontribs)
Thanks for your clarification, Grammar'sLittleHelper. Anyone against inclusion of content sourced from reliable sources such as the BBC (part of the previous edits)? prokaryotes (talk) 17:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Are you suggesting that a source does not exist for the statement "The impact and resulting fires caused the collapse of the Twin Towers and the destruction and damage of other buildings in the World Trade Center complex"? That is a perfectly sensible and clear sentence, and ample sources exist for the statement on the main 9/11 page. I would strongly object to presenting that as anything other than fact; the "people who question the mainstream version" embrace fringe theories, and we can and should discuss those theories without lending them credence—per explicit Wikipedia policy. As to the BBC source, it's a blog entry, not a reported piece. Dyrnych (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Currently none of the references includes a cite which supports the paragraph's lede intro segment, "9/11 conspiracy theorists reject some or all of the following facts about the 9/11 attacks:", in regards to the article scope. There are two links to the official report, which are fine, one reference unavailable, one reference about flight 93 (not discussed here). In fact the current paragraph as it stands resembles original research. Hence, why we have to add a source which supports the claim , "9/11 conspiracy theorists reject...". prokaryotes (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Additional there is no reference supporting the claim that cts reject the damage of other buildings.prokaryotes (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
The main text on the BBC page is written by a BBC editor: "About this blog: Welcome to The Editors, a site where we, editors from across BBC News, will share our dilemmas and issues. Here are tips on taking part, but to join in, all you need do is add a comment." This qualifies under the following clause of WP:RS: "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Building 7 has been described as the "Achilles heel" by 911-Truthers. I also don't think Popular Mechanics is a reliable source, they even have a webpage touting UFO's. Raquel Baranow (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Alternative BBC source to outline cts[edit]

Above editors raised concerns in regards to a BBC reference. Alternatively, take this one from 2011. http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-14665953 Anyone take issue with that BBC reference, in order to identify the cts part of the article scope? prokaryotes (talk) 18:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Support I support the inclusion of above reliable source (WP:RS), in order to outline important article content, and is in agreement with the article scope. prokaryotes (talk) 18:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

RFC: Update of Background section per BBC 2011[edit]

The article has multiple issues, among them the lack of explaining the actual conspiracy theories in the background section. The background section begins with "9/11 conspiracy theorists reject some or all of the following facts about the 9/11 attacks." References, either do not mention conspiracy theories, or make misleading claims such as, "..fires caused the collapse of the Twin Towers and the destruction and damage of other buildings..."

  • Suggestion (A): Update the current background section in accordance with this BBC article (2011), for the five most prominent 9/11 conspiracy theories.
  • Suggestion (B): In particular add the following content based on an edit for two of the BBC's listed conspiracies, (read the edit here).

Either support A and/or B, or oppose the article addition, with a brief explanation why. Use the discussion section to make suggestions and for general input. - prokaryotes (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

  • Support (A and B) Per my proposal above. prokaryotes (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose both A and B, at least in the form that the editor has chosen to use. There is no reason why the particular claims deserve special prominence, even if the citation in question is used. Dyrnych (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
The reason why to add the content discussed here, and deserves more prominence, is because the BBC notes, "..the five most prominent 9/11 conspiracy theories.." (status of 2011) prokaryotes (talk) 01:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
That is a fine example of begging the question. Note also that the section in question summarizes the disputed facts of 9/11 and doesn't assign prominence among those facts in terms of what conspiracy theorists dispute. Dyrnych (talk) 01:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
But do you realize that the lede of that section and at least the first paragraph content in respect to the lede outline, and the towers - is not referenced? This is particular an issue because i never heard of a conspiracy which disputes building damage. The part on towers is just to meddled, not clear enough. Alternatively, we could break the article lede with related content down and move it into a background sub section.prokaryotes (talk) 02:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
It's a summary (not a lede), references occur later in the article with respect to each conspiracy theory, and "some or all" suffices. Dyrnych (talk) 02:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose both A and B as per Dyrnych Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose both since the linked edit is grammatically incorrect and there is no evident problem to fix anyway. Guy (Help!) 10:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
"edit is grammatically incorrect" -- Thank you Guy. prokaryotes (talk) 13:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Actually I was wrong, it is just that any bullets or whatever were not rendered. It would make sense as a bulleted list of statements, but not as paragraphs. So, what problem does it fix, exactly? Guy (Help!) 15:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Nutshell: We should use the BBC source to outline the 5 most prominent cts. So far i am only concerned with the towers. The background section(intro paragraph) is vague, unclear, and meddled, and unsourced in parts. With the lack of enthusiasm for RS based edits here, i guess the article will just stay the way it is now. prokaryotes (talk) 19:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Moot, Oiyarbepsy has made the edit, other edits have happened since. Guy (Help!) 15:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support (A and B). This article is overlong and needs pruning. Also, it lacks structure, so it is hard to identify the conspiracy theories precisely and to explain why (if at all) they should be rebutted. Arrivisto (talk) 13:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • Just so everyone knows, I changed the section to that particular wording and modeled it after Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. I feel this wording is best, since it states the facts as facts and doesn't give the conspiracists any credit for accuracy. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
It's easy to frame a topic in your prefered term. However, there are also many official statements or reliable sources which differ, and those are certainly not conspiracy theories. My point being, you need to exactly identify certain statements or views, otherwise you are not objective. prokaryotes (talk) 08:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • If a reliable source support it, then it's not a conspiracy theory. This is about all the theories that reliable sources don't support. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 14:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • "If a reliable source support it, then it's not a conspiracy theory". Au contraire! A conspiracy theory is NOT inherently unreliable or "wacko"! Rather, a conspiracy theory is one that suggests that, contrary to received opinion, the true facts have been distorted or concealed. Provided a conspiracy theory is capable of disproof, it is a valid theory awaiting scientific rebuttal. See Karl Popper's "Conjectures & Refutations". Arrivisto (talk) 13:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • The problem with these theories is that, for believers, no amount of evidence will ever disprove it. They merely expand the conspiracy to claim the new evidence is part of it. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • "The problem with these theories is that, for believers, no amount of evidence will ever disprove it." So what?! The point of the page is to explain to rational and disinterested persons what the fringe theories are; and if the page is to serve a purpose it should examine such "fringe beliefs" and reject them if and when found wanting. Continual plugging of the official line rather than explaining why the fringe theories are faulty becomes reminiscent of the "thought police"! Arrivisto (talk) 14:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep in mind that this is not a forum for discussion of the subject, personal opinions, or the opinions of others. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 17:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Some users could do with a careful reading of WP:FRINGE and, indeed, the FAQ at the top of the page. We're not required to present fringe theories as plausible, nor are we required to present them from the perspective of believers. Dyrnych (talk) 00:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The following facts[edit]

Any edit that treats what happened as anything other than fact will get a revert from me. It puts this entire encyclopedia in disrepute when fringe beliefs are given similar weight to established historical fact. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I fear you seem to miss the point! This page is not a justification for 9/11 conspiracy theories, it is a description thereof. Nor is there an implicit suggestion that the conventional view is wrong; rather the page simply states what "conspiracy theorist/fringe believers" object to. So your knee-jerk reverts are ill-advised and undermine the purpose of this page, and make the issue less clear. It is also unscientific and dogmatic to talk about "established historic fact" when all versions of history are subjective; and in this particular case there are valid reasons to query some aspects of the official version of the events. Arrivisto (talk) 14:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
— The reputation of Wikipedia is neither so lofty nor so fragile that it would suffer from a suggestion that the US government might be wrong. Wikipedia is still a creature of the Internet. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 18:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
True, but neither do we portray conspiracist claptrap as if it were valid. Guy (Help!) 18:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
US Gov't might be wrong? And so is Popular Mechanics, Time, The Times of India, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the BBC and Le Monde? C'mon, with that many sources from that many countries, it is not merely an issue of the official view of the US government. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

That said, if someone does want to create a section listing the prominent conspiracies, you could add one, but I think it would be redundant. We have some listed in the lead section, and to some extent in the Types of Conspiracies section. Such a section would make the most sense, in my view, as a subsection (an ===heading===) of the Background section. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I did precisely that, but you reverted it! Also, how on earth could, on a conspiracy theory page, could a section listing the theories be redundant?! Arrivisto (talk) 11:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 22 external links on 9/11 conspiracy theories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)