Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories/Archive 16

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

→

Claims related to Jews and Israel

Others go further to suggest that 9/11 was part of an international Jewish conspiracy.

Needs to be changed to

Others go further to suggest that 9/11 was part of an international Zionist conspiracy.

Zionist is not this same as Jewish and the majority of conspiracy theories regarding Israeli involvement identify the international aspect to be Zionist in nature rather than involving world Jewry.
If this change cannot be done and even it if it you must add citation needed next to this specific claim as I have said it does not reflect the majority of conspiracy theories that mention Israel. So in summation, the identification of Zionists as a culprit in 9/11 conspiracy theories is more pertinent and in fact a more widely held view amongst said theorists than the identification of Jews as a culprit and thus it would be more reflective of reality to mention Zionist rather than Jewish if a choice must be made between the two. A sound compromise would simply be the inclusion of 'the Zionist culprit' viewpoint.

Maybe change the heading to Claims related to Zionists and Israel or Claims related to Zionism and Israel or even Claims related to Jews, Zionism/ts, and/or Israel.

I have now made this change. Please sign and date your comments. Thanks, Corleonebrother 17:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Lack of Macroscopic Overview

There seems an intentional exclusion of big-picture focus in this article.

If we assume that no knowledge from any source is trustworthy but the official story, we may still analyze and find a large number of lapses in normal behavior. Any one of the possible 'conspiracy' ideas is shaky by itself and convincingly explained away by some 'expert' statement- but as a whole, the events show one of two things- the attackers were fantastically adept while our entire government played keystone kops, or the official story and the events that day are being mis-represented.

A brief list:

specious lack of foreknowledge of attacks by all assets of the world's largest power
extremely fast media releases including names and photos of those responsible, by that same world power's previously inept agencies
no air response to 4 missing planes
no call to shoot planes down, or call too late
no protective action at the Pentagon
collapse of 3 concrete and steel skyscrapers all within 12 hours - explained by damage, fire
fantastically small possibility that the accused were capable of the flight necessary to achieve the goals
historically out-of-character cleanup behavior
historically out-of-character investigation behavior
historically out-of-character actions day-of involving protection of president
persecution of those in positions of power who deny/argue the official story

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wizzlepig (talk • contribs) 21:52, 10 July 2007

I believe your suggestion would be worthwhile. Anyone willing to cooperate on drafting a section for this?  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 10:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, Cor. That's two. It is in fact the big picture which first set off suspicions, on the day itself. (It took -me- three -years- to get suspicious myself)  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 02:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

proposal Maybe we could downsize this 131 K article, by letting this article describe the Macroscopic overview, and distributing the other facets (prior warning, collapse, hijacking and intercept, testimonies and statements) over several other articles? But: this would mean a dramatic increase in the number of conspiracy articles, and I seem to recall this was unwanted by some.  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 04:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Besides the points mentioned above, I'd like to note that every article, including the main article on 9/11 on wikipedia, talks about the events as described by the official "story", in a factual tone regardless of how illogical the point being made may be or that the point may have clearly been disproven. While on the other hand some information that has been proven beyond doubt by the 9/11 conspiracy theorists, truthers movement or scientists, is misrepresented in this article by words such as "Claimed" or "Alleged". This article should have the same standards as for any other wikipedia article. Since the "Conspiracy theories" contain a lot of factual information especially the technical information such as the use of thermite, and support to these claims is wide spread since research papers such as the one by Dr. Steven Jones have been accepted by the scientific community, thus any "Claim" that is supported by references and is proven beyond doubt with evidence by whomever (theorist or scientist etc) should be represented in a factual tone/way.

I'll just give one example. Following is Norman Mineta 9/11 Commission testimony

There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, "The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to, "The plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?

You know that Mineta was referring to the orders to ground all civilian aircraft, right?CloutierFan02 (talk) 02:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

In short, I'd like the WP:NPOV policy to be enforced rather than the USGOV:OFFICIAL_STORY policy. Farqis 09:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

"Official" and "Mainstream"

This and other articles use the terms 'official' account and 'mainstream' account inconsistently and I see there has been a small edit war changing one to the other. Currently, this article states that the two terms are equivalent. If this is correct, which one should we be using here? If this is wrong, what is the difference between them? Corleonebrother 18:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I would say that mainstream should be used except when referring to the reports of government agencies and commissions, such as FEMA, NIST, and the 9/11 Commission. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs) 20:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I would say that official should be used as the word mainstream carries the connotation that it is a majority view. It is clear that the "official" account taken as a whole is a minority view (according to RS polls 36%) and you only get a majority if you include those who generally accept the official account but believe the government is covering up some aspects. Wayne 09:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

That poll refers to those (36%) who believe the mainstream view in all details. If one disagrees with one detail (whether there was molten metal or mearly glowing embers on an apparently liquid surface), one would not be counted in that 36%, if I recall the poll correctly. Each component of the mainstream view still apparently has majority agreement. It should be noted that all mainstream media agree, in general, with the position, so "mainstream" is still clearly appropriate. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I already said that was what the 36% was. I object to you saying "all mainstream media". All may apply to American media but definately not international. I also point out that one mainstream US reporter who until recently was particulary scathing of conspiracy theorists (as insulting to victims) has now apologised and offered to support 9/11 "truthers" after doing his own research. Using "insulting victims" to debunk conspiracies is particularly insulting to them considering many victims families and rescue workers are active in the "truth" movement. The offical view may generally have majority agreement but it is not a large majority as implied by POV editors. This is why we need to give equal time to all theories, the official version is just one of several and to call it mainstream implies accepting it 100% for which there is no majority. Wayne 07:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Arthur's definitions, though this makes it difficult to work out which one should be used when. I mean, most of the mainstream view is contained in the official reports, so then we should be using 'official' most of the time, shouldn't we? Only in cases where a specific issue is not covered by FEMA, NIST or the Commission would it be incorrect to use 'official'. So what are these cases? Would it be possible to create a list of things that were not dealt with by the official investigators but were looked at by media such as Popular Mechanics? For example, the NIST Report doesn't consider anything past the point where "global collapse was inevitable" - so if we're referring to global collapse features, we should say mainstream. Corleonebrother 13:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, what I intended to say was that we should use "official" only when referring to specific official reports, and "mainstream" referring to the generally accepted view. That makes the choice more clear, as well. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Unjustified deletion

I would like to invite User: Exander who made this consistent deletion without providing justifications or having discussed it to try to do it now.--Pokipsy76 19:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I can't speak for Exander, but the paragraph would need to be cited - also it would be better placed under 'Allegations of Cover-up' (a section which needs to be expanded anyway). Corleonebrother 20:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

So do you suggest to restore the paragraph in that section and add the "fact" tag?--Pokipsy76 20:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

No - it looks ugly doing that - why not just cite the facts before putting it in? There are nine references bunched together in the first paragraph of that section. We need to use them to turn that paragraph into something like the paragraph you have (and more), putting each reference next to the sentence that it applies to. Have a go and maybe put it here so that we be sure no-one objects first. Corleonebrother 21:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The deleted paragraph would need some reliable sources explaining what it is trying to say. Listing hand-picked semi-facts and vague hints in the hope that the reader will draw the desired wrong conclusions and thus become dumber is routinely done by certain web sites; it is not an appropriate device for an encyclopedia. Are there neutral, balanced sources that discuss the issues in the deleted edit, and consider and explain their relation to each other? WP:NOR please. Weregerbil 15:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Editing this page is a waste of time as no matter how impartial you care to write, your contributions will be reverted if you dare to suggest that the official account of 9/11 can or should be questioned. Even suggesting that the official account is a conspiracy theory (in that there was a global conspiracy by a Muslim terrorist group) will get reverted, because admitting that the official account is a conspiracy theory casts it in doubt to people who think any conspiracy theory must be false. QuantumG (talk) 12:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion - External Links

The large number of exterior links might be better handled by creating a separate page for organizing these links in a list, and having a fewer number in this main article. More links to more conspiracy resources and skeptical/debunking material could then be provided on this subsiduary daughter article. Comments?--Filll 18:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather not see any more articles on 9/11 conspiracy theories - we have too many already. I do think the external links should be pruned way back. Part of the problem is the over-reliance on primary sources. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I would beg to differ. In the interests of serving the readership, there is a value to cataloguing the links, as we do on many lists here on WP. This sort of resource is one of the immense benefits of WP. This also would allow the list here on the main article to be reduced to a more manageable level.--Filll 18:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Having checked Tom's edits, I see he has done an incredible yeoman's job of editing these conspiracy articles. It is absolutely staggering what he has contributed. I am duly impressed. However, be that as it may, I still would love a comprehensive list as a resource here.--Filll 19:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I have just reorganised the external links section. I have deleted the following ones as part of my sort out. Here they are in case anyone disputes their removal (my brief reasons for deletion in italics):

9/11: Press for Truth - wikilink
Loose Change - wikilink
The Great Conspiracy: The 9/11 News Special You Never Saw - text
"The WTC Conspiracy". Telepolis. Retrieved 2006-07-30. (in German) - German
Why Do You Think They Fireproof Steel Trusses? If steel can't be affected by fire? - very short video
Sorry Decky11, 9/11 was NOT an "inside job" The WTC towers showed telltale signs they were about to collapse several minutes before each crumbled to the ground. - very short video
Filibuster cartoons - The Truth About 911 - editorial cartoon mocking 9/11 conspiracy theories. - one page silliness
Left SanePeople - tiny anonymous webpage
September Clues - the 9/11 newsmedia coverage
Video Collection and "9/11 VideoMashups Top 40 Charts" - blog with a few links to short clips
911 Videos on Truthhub.com - unrelated site
Secret of 9/11^{[dead link]} at Google Videos - short video
Call 911 - unrelated page
High Resolution (700 MB) 911 Mysteries Video - Downloadable - unrelated site
9/11 Mysteries Part One: Demolitions - duplicate
"How Did United Flight 93 Crash?". flight93crash.com. Retrieved 2006-07-30. - site only looks at Flight 93
"9/11 Conspiracy & Truth Movement News". - link broken

I'd like to get rid of more of them but I'm not really sure what the criteria would be for choosing some over others. There are some important ones missing as well (like the NIST reports) so they should really be added. Corleonebrother 20:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have any suggestions as to what else should be done with the External Links? If not, should we remove the tag now? Corleonebrother 19:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

BBC's response to Building 7 collapse report

I am suggesting an addition under the subject of the theory of a controlled demolition, specifically the piece about the BBC reporting the collapse of Building 7 before its actual collapse. Richard Porter of the BBC offers a response on their own website to the 'misjudgment'. It is a very dodging response and I think clarifies their position in some regards.

So:

Richard Porter, head of news, BBC World, offered a statement concerning the news broadcast (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html).

Leaf, 14:28, 16 September 2007

Agreed Edkollin 06:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Whis is this being deleted?

Arabs involved in 9/11 "cooperated" with Zionists

In an August 30, 2007 interview on the Hezbullah TV network former United States Senator James Abourezk stated that "the Arabs who were involved in 9/11 cooperated with the Zionists. It was a cooperation. They gave them the perfect excuse to denounce all Arabs."^[1]

I do not understand why this is repeatedly being deleted. The person as an ex Senator is notable. One deleter interpreted that the Senator was trying to say that the Arabs involved in 9/11 unintentionally helped the Zionists. This may or may not be true but it is not up to us to try to interpret what he “meant” to say that is Original Research. The ex Senator used the word cooperated not once but twice. He never said “unintentionally” or “ironically” or any other qualifier. As far as I know he has not made a later statement clarifying his remarks. We have to go by his words which fits the definition of a 9/11 conspiracy theory whichever way you want to look at it. If somebody can come up with a cite where the man clarifies his remarks I will gladly agree that this is not article worthy. Without that clarification his statement belongs somewhere in the article Edkollin 05:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for the people actually doing the removing, but my opinion is that this article isn't (or at least, shouldn't be) a repository for every kind of conspiracy theory. Indeed, the senator in question may be notable, but his statements themselves aren't necessarily notable. That's my take on it. There needs to be some reliable source showing that this quote isn't just one person airing his views. But you'd have to ask the actual deleters to find out their reasons. --clpo13_(talk) 06:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This comes under the BLP as it shows a biased opinion. Also the source is not notible and even if such a source is found, it should be reliable and should be supported by other reliable secondary sources. Refer to BLP guidelines.Farqis 12:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I am coming to this discussion late but the article should include all 9/11 conspiracies regardless of merit as long as there is a reliable source quoting a believer. This article is not a forum for convincing people of a viewpoint, but a collection of theories. I suggest checking out Masonic conspiracy theories for an example.--Adamfinmo (talk) 09:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

AE911Truth.INFO - Debunking site for AE911Truth organization

I placed a link to a new debunking site in the proper place on this page. It gives a critical examination of a group listed on this page, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. The link was deleted for no good reason. It is not misleading. It is in the Opposing Conspiracy Theories link section, and its description makes clear that it is not affiliated with Richard Gage's group. It should remain.--Joseph.nobles (talk) 02:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

polls?

Can someone put a poll summary into the article, for example http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll (or perhaps something better)? I think, how widespread those theories are is very important information about them. On an unrelated note, i think, the "controlled demolition" should be removed from the intro, since it has its own section. The article i linked above also says it is believed only by 16 out of 36 conspiracists, which doesn't qualify as "most of them". 80.109.194.224 22:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's another on MSNBC website. Farqis 13:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

We have an article dedicated to them: 9/11 opinion polls. No need to choose a single poll to mention, when you can just link to the article that describes all the major ones. Corleonebrother 14:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:South WTC Collapse.jpg

Image:South WTC Collapse.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 08:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin: what is THIS deletion about???

Possible support for the practicality of the "remote control" theory is given by the remotely controlled flight of the Global Hawk, a jet powered aircraft of similar size to a 737 which took off from Edwards Air Force Base on the west coast of the U.S. and flew non stop to, and eventually landed at, RAAF Base Edinburgh, South Australia without a pilot in April 2001^[2].

The material deleted (above) seems to be relevant to the topic.

You said "Arthur Rubin (Talk | contribs) (Revert as OR without some Truther claiming that as a reference. Undid revision 162613683 by WLRoss (talk))"

===== whatever THAT means. I can't locate "WP:OR." Are you claiming it's "original research?" It appears to be paraphrasing a news item, which is referenced.

Wowest 10:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The relevance is OR, unless also referenced by a conspiracy theorist. Otherwise, it's just WP:SYN. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

My reason for adding it was that the section currently implies that it is something never done before and is only technically feasable. I suggest that to make it more NPOV some mention should be made that military use of remote control for large aircraft is a fact and to use the link for that instead of detailing the actual event. Wayne 09:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, a 737 is five times bigger than an RQ-4 by max takeoff weight. <eleland/talkedits> 00:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Cell phone source

The article which claims that cell phones do work in Airplanes mentions cell phone calls during take off and landing, and cell phones being turned on mid-flight. These are radically different---obviously the writer of this section of the article is trying to put their own opinion on this section and not providing a honest look at this theory. The writing style is ridiculous as well---it biases the reader by first claiming that only select people say it will not work, but that a University claims that it will, even though the source is ridiculous. Might I ask---US Government involvement in the creation of this article? 166.70.99.93 05:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a pre 911 scientific study on cell phone usage in aircraft. It has all the calculations and percentage chance of a call being connected at different altitudes/speeds. This is probably where claims the cell calls were faked comes from as I remember it said chances of calls connecting were very low in the conditions applicable to 911 (I think 10,000 feet was maximum altitude where you had a chance to connect). I'll see if I can find it. Wayne 09:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thank you very much. I have been looking over the Wikipedia article and it really does not do justice to any of the conspiracy theories---it seems to throw all of them down instead of explaining them. An encyclopedia entry should explain things, not explain why they are wrong! Especially not this close to the event; we do not really know what happened in a historical event until at least 70 years past the date. 166.70.99.93 23:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It should throw them down if they are false, as they all are. The point is NPOV, which is different from gullibility. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree but they have not been proved to be false. Assuming they are is OR. The problem is that the article is biased towards discrediting CT's while downplaying any evidence for their credibility. For example one sentence lending some support to the possibility of a CT quotes the source as saying "extremely difficult" which gives credence to the OT when in fact the source actually says "impossible" which gives credence to the CT. I edited it but can guarantee that some anti-conspiracy freak will undo it even though it is 100% accurate as it now reads. Manipulating text to discredit CT's only proves that there must be either some substance to the CT claims or a lack of evidence for the OT. I'm all for proving what happened and discount most CT's myself but I still support NPOV treatment even if it conflicts with what I believe. After all....I may be wrong. Wayne (talk) 07:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Professor A.K. Dewdney took a variety of cell phones up in small aircraft over an urban area on three occasions in 2003. He derived a formula to predict the probability of a call getting through based on the altitude of the airplane.

http://physics911.net/projectachilles

He predicts that a smaller percentage of calls would get through from a commercial aircraft due the Faraday cage effect from the smaller window area and thicker aluminum skin than on the airplanes he used. Anecdotal evidence from other people, included with his research, indicates that at normal cruising altitude, using 2001 - 2003 technology, no calls get through.

He later speculated on the contents of the calls that allegedly got through here:

http://physics911.net/cellphoneflight93

Wowest 18:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Dewdney is generally considered competent, but it was and is true that the US cell-phone network and the Canadian cell-phone network use different modulations. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

David Ray Griffin also has something relevant to say about these calls, here:

http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2007/10/08/01871.html Wowest 19:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

As I said, Dewdney is generally considered competent. Any inferences I'm making about Griffen are purely intentional. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

According to the official account, Flight 93 made at least 6 air phone calls yet according to Boeing, Flights 93 and 77 did not have air phones fitted. This means any calls from those two aircraft had to be from cell phones. Then we have another strange discrepancy between the official account and the testimony the FBI gave at the Zacarias Moussaoui trial. This goes to the claims cell phones can't connect at high altitudes. Most of the calls were supposedly made at over 30,000 ft. At the Moussaoui trial the FBI's report on the calls from the planes showed only 2 "cell phone" calls actually connected on United 93 and both were made at less than 5,000 ft at 9:58am. US solicitor general Ted Olson said he received two calls from his wife on Flight 77, yet the FBI's testimony at the trial was that Barbara Olsen made one attempted cell call which never connected. I hope someone can prove me in error on this as I can't believe the media would not have picked this up. Wayne 01:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This is inaccurate. Boeing 757s did, in fact, have airphones at the time. There is a lengthy discussion about this on the JREF conspiracy theories sub-forum, complete with documents and other evidence that show that the phones were not deactivated or removed from the planes until some time in 2002 or 2003. I haven't time at the moment to find a precise link to the discussion for you but you can find it by going to www.randi.org then to the forums, then to the Conspiracy Theories sub-forum, and conducting a search. Jazz2006 01:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

No, what is INACCURATE is your strawman claim - Boeing itself has confirmed that the American Airlines 757s did not have air phones installed. Perhaps many other 757s did, but not those of American Airlines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.190.83.161 (talk) 03:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Last year American Airlines confirmed that flight 77 definately was not fitted with air phones. The FBI (again last year) said that there were no successful cell phone calls from that flight. That flight 93 had them fitted doesn't alter the fact that there are only 2 cell calls from that flight (both under 5K ft so supporting the fact cell phones don't work at altitude) yet the media insist there were probably 8 and possibly 10 (2 calls were reported by some media as air phone and by others as cell phone). If you can find a link would be good as I have never visited conspiracy forums (so have no idea what JREF is). Wayne 02:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I just edited to show flight 77 had no cell phones based on these two references (add either as notes if you need to) which are included in David Griffins book:
A pilot had written to AA asking about the airphones on flight 77. He passed this reply he got from AA to David Ray Griffin who then telephoned Chad Kinder to confirm it's authenticity. Kinder said he could not specifically recall having written it but probably did as “That sounds like an accurate statement.”
Dear Mr. XXXXXXXX:
Thank you for contacting Customer Relations. I am pleased to have the opportunity to assist you. That is correct we do not have phones on our Boeing 757. The passengers on flight 77 used their own personal cellular phones to make out calls during the terrorist attack. However, the pilots are able to stay in constant contact with the Air Traffic Control tower.
Mr. XXXXXXXX, I hope this information is helpful. It is a privilege to serve you.
Sincerely,
Chad W. Kinder
Customer Relations
American Airlines
The American Airlines Boeing 757 Aircraft Maintenance Manual (757 AMM) dated January 28, 2001 states that the passenger phone system for the AA 757 fleet had (by date of issue) been deactivated. Wayne (talk) 12:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced claim

The claim

"U.S. officials, mainstream journalists, and independent researchers generally accepted the conclusion that Al Qaeda is solely responsible for the attacks and the resulting destruction"

say something not trivial and need a source to be stated. Is there any poll supporting the claimed opinion for the mainstrean journalists and US officials? I don't think so and therefore I suggest to correct the claim untill somebody will find a source. Objections?--Pokipsy76 19:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I object. It's accurate, and so well known that finding a specific source would be difficult. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Well known? How do we know the real opinions of journalists and officials? You can just say that generally you don't see journalists and officials on the TV saying that they believe in a cover up but this does not allow to make the claim above.--Pokipsy76 20:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

You would have cite most major news website's archives quoting the 9/11 commission and NIST or reporting based on assumption that the findings were accurate. You would have to do the same for Bush and members of his administration and leaders of Congress. That would be unreadable and OR. Considering people have lives my bet the project would never get done. Without the claim there the section falls apart. Without that section the article long as it is has no context. Its a catch 22 the section violates Wiki rules. Without the section the article poorly serves the readers. Edkollin 03:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't see how the documentation you are talking about could provide any proof of what mainstream journalists or officials actually believe in general about the eventuality of a cover up, in fact:

1) Journalists are not generally asked to comment facts or make assumptions about them in their articles.

2) Even if a person (journalist or not) would think that NIST and 9/11 commissions are telling the truth (and this is still not provable in general) its still entirely possible for him to believe that there have been a cover up (why should one expect that the investigations show everithing?)

--Pokipsy76 09:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Well thats the catch 22 no poll has been or is likely to be done that is why the best you can do is what I say and that is OR. My OR is that the most journalists working for the "mainstream media" when I have seen them interviewed on the topic seem incredulous that they even have to discuss the topic Edkollin 22:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to think about that one a bit.... I think it can be better expressed and become NPOV.--Wowest 19:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm ok with the sentence with one exception. I object to using the word "independent". There are 3 groups of researchers.....partisan, independents who have looked at the evidence and those independents who while accepting the conclusion do so without having looked at the evidence. If we exclude that last group then it is a rather large percentage of independent researchers who reject the conclusion. As such the sentence does need a reference if the word "independent" is kept as it implies that the majority of researchers have investigated the evidence and support the conclusion. It is semantic trickery to leave it as is. Wayne 13:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I have doubts that (1) we should eliminate the last group without also eliminating those who reject any mainstream theory in favor of conspiracy theories without looking at the facts, and (2) that we can elminate the last group. I also have doubts that the statement is not true even if we did exclude the last group, but that would seem semantic trickery. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain on what grounds it is ok to say that "mainstream journalists generally accepted the conclusion that Al Qaeda is solely responsible for the attacks"? Considering that

1) the 9/11 commission report stated that George W. Bush had been "not well served" by the FBI and CIA, so even acording just the report someone must share some part of the responsability at lreast for incompetence.

2) we actually have no way to know the general opinion of mainstream journalists. It wouldn't be strange if journalists that believe in a cover up wouln't be willing to express their opinion to the pubblic.--Pokipsy76 10:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

By that logic, it might be better to say "reported" than "generally accepted". Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 13:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

"Reported" seems to make sense just for the "mainstream journalists", not for the "US officials" or the "independent researcher".--Pokipsy76 20:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Instead of "mainstream journalists" change it to "mainstream media". Three prominent journalists were fired several years ago for refusing to publicly support what they knew was a lie and lost a court case they brought for unfair dismissal. The court finding was that it actually was a lie and that their employer knew it was but ruled journalists are legally bound to report their employers view if required. It is probable that many journalists who dispute 911 will not be published by their paper or speak up. I suggest the sentence should read "U.S. officials, mainstream media, and researchers..." to avoid problems. Wayne 15:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

If you say "the theory is not accepted by mainstream media" you would be implying that the media accept or reject theories, while they just have to report facts and relevant opinions. It wouldn't be a good wording.--Pokipsy76 11:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Please give a cite for "Three prominent journalists were fired several years ago for refusing to publicly support what they knew was a lie and lost a court case they brought for unfair dismissal", if you think it's relevant. Even so, "mainstream media" may be better, but, because we are using "generally", "mainstream" may be WP:WEASEL wording in that context. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't give a cite because it did not involve 911. There were actually two cases. In the first FOX fired two news readers for refusing to lie on air about an event due to the subject being a major advertiser with FOX who would be embarrassed by the truth. 2. The other was 3 reporters fired after refusing to lie about WMD in Iraq (the court found FOX knew it was a lie when they reported it as news). The court found that the media are under no obligation to tell the truth in news reports and can fire reporters for not supporting a known lie. The only relevance to this arguement would be the reluctance of reporters to jepardise their jobs by going against their employers views and that FOX is considered mainstream in the US. Wayne 06:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Quote: "the news organization owned by media baron Rupert Murdoch, argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves. In it's opinion, the Court of Appeal held that the Federal Communications Commission position against news distortion is only a "policy," and they ruled, it is technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast." Considering that the reporters had to pay FOX $1 million after losing their unfair dismissal case this is what is relevant despite it not being related to 911. Wayne 06:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The citation being used to justify the claim "# July 29, 2007.

^ Bazant, Zdenek P. and Mathieu Verdure. "Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions" in Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE, Volume 133, Issue 3, pp. 308-319 (March 2007). Bazant and Verdure write, "As generally accepted by the community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering (though not by a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives), the failure scenario was as follows..." (continues with a four-part scenario of progressive structural failure) dosen't even correspond to the article." Any objections to editing it?--DatDoo (talk) 02:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I should say it dosen't correspond to the claim--DatDoo (talk) 02:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The evidence of 'independent researchers' includes the Purdue story, which has many problems with it.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/9467

Also NIST is not an 'independent source' as they were staffed with defense contractors when they wrote the WTC report. Defense contractors have a conflict of interest because any impllication that there was official involvement in 9/11 would cut military contracts. However a report showing that Bin Ladin was responsible would lead to a dramatic increase in defense contracts.

And if NIST (which was staffed with defense contractors with a conflict of interest) counts as 'independent' then the magazine fire engineering should count too.

http://www.cam.net.uk/home/aaa315/peace/explosions.htm

http://911research.com/press_releases/blueprints.html

"Hoffman's associate editor, Gregg Roberts, sees the NIST Final Report as a whitewash. "The refusal by NIST to fully disclose its computer models, its assumptions, and the conflicts of interest of the many defense contractors who assisted in this whitewash of an investigation reveal the true intentions behind the Report."

Overall I have to admit this article (9/11 conspiracy theories) is rank with bias against 9/11 truth, weak arguments against 9/11 truth and weak argument for 9/11 truth and does not quality as an encyclopedic entry until it is rewritten. This article is not worthy of an encyclopedia. First off, change the title from '9/11 conspiracy theories' to '9/11 alternate hypotheses'. The title is an insult. Calling people with alternative hypotheses 'conspiracy theorists' is a slap in the face when these 'conspiracy theorists' have dozens of pieces of evidence and dozens of legitimate questions. Is everyone in the social or physical sciences with dozens of pieces of evidence a 'conspiracy theorist'? Even the wikipedia article for 'conspiracy theorist' says that this term is used to discredit ideas that have legitimate evidence and questions behind them.

El Juche 09:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Claim for Times of India being "mainstream corporate media"

I have reverted Arthur Rubin's edit supporting the notion that the Times of India is "mainstream media." It simply isn't. It's foreign media. Nobody in the 9/11 Truth Movement or attached to any other 9/11 "conspiracy" movement would so label it, as there is no evidence that The Times of India systematically suppresses stories which would be embarrassing to the Military Industrial Complex, the CIA, the Federal Reserve System, the state of Israel or the owners of American print and broadcast media. Wowest 15:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Please provide a reference specifically stating that that it's not mainstream, or that someone calls it non-mainstream, or leave it out entirely. The Orange County Register is non-mainstream, if you were to use the definition you are implying here. In fact, there may not be a "mainstream" publication under that definition. (Besides, you said "mainstream" rather than "corporate".) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

An absolute joke

Stating that accusations of Israels involvement is anti-semitic is completely wrong.

Number one, Israel is a nation which should follow the same rules as any other nation. The idea that questioning a nation is somehow religious hatred makes a mockery of freedom of speech.

Number two, the majority of jewish people do not descend from Semites, they descend from Khazarians.

Somebody needs to change that, it's ridiculous and purposely attempting to discredit the truth movement, which currently has a lot more supporting evidence than the official conspiracy theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.85.196 (talk) 09:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

O.K. -- I removed the anti-Israeli category from the anti-semitic category, since they are two separate issues. Some American Jews have been critical of the State of Israel as being anti-semitic, by the way, because they discriminate against Sephardic (semitic) Jews in favor of Ashkenazai (largely Kazarian) Jews. Wowest 13:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I have made further changes to separate the Israeli involvement claims from the anti-Semitic theories. Corleonebrother 17:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of the Purdue Study

There was a reference to Purdue being an independent researcher that has validated the official WTC collapse. However this study has many problems to it. These are not mentioned in the article.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/9467 —Preceding unsigned comment added by El Juche (talk • contribs) 02:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

WHAT THE HELL !?

Corleonebrother, what the hell are you doing to this article? I mean really, doing 10 edits over the course of 2 hours is strange, but deleting several large sections of text WITHOUT DISCUSSION is vandalism. PLEASE STOP. I almost undid all your ridiculous edits, but then decided to provide an opportunity to discuss this further. Your deletions have not improved the article, and by suppressing important information you do harm to Wikipedia.Logicman1966 04:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I was only following the spirit of WP:BOLD. What specific concerns do you have about my edits? I am happy to discuss my reasons for making them, if there are any objections. Corleonebrother 08:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I am referring to the large amount of material that you deleted from the article, in particular relating to the 5 Israelis arrested for usual behaviour. This material was supported by references, and is very relevant to the 9/11 attacks. I strongly believe that the material should be put back into the artcile.Logicman1966 01:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I condensed 20 lines about the 5 Israelis down to 8 lines, which say the same thing but with less detail. In my opinion, there was too much detail before. Do you see anything important and relevant missing now that was present before? Corleonebrother 19:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

(To make referring back easier, here is the edit in question: [1])

I haven't checked what changes you made but it is always a good idea to start a discussion and show that your edits are justified and helpful for the article before you go and make a big change as deleting a whole paragraph. Even simply saying "I'm about to delete bla bla bla, any objections???" atleast shows good faith.Farqis 13:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

By removing so much material, you have completely changed the perspective of the incident. It now reads like those 5 guys were just innocent by-standers, who happened to be in the right place with a camera. You have conveniently deleted most of the incriminating evidence that would give any intelligent reader a quite different impression. I was actually intending to add even more material relating to the incident. If you believe that it makes the article too long, then I propose splitting it off into a separate article. Logicman1966 05:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Please can you be more specific? What would you like to add back in? Corleonebrother 18:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Specific facts that should not have been removed - (1) reaction of bomb sniffing dogs who checked the van (2) Suter abandoned the business and fled back to Israel (3) the FBI placed Suter on same suspect list as Atta (4) Kurzberg refused to take the lie detector test and then failed it (5) CIA suspicions that Urban Moving was a Mossad front (6) quote from Carl Cameron's news report.Logicman1966 (talk) 11:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for making things clear. I have thought this over some more and I think some of those facts could be added back in, but others not... (1) I don't think this is relevant... what would explosives in the van have to do with 9/11? (2) restored, (3) restored, (4) restored, (5) restored, (6) I don't think this is notable... so they said the information is classified... couldn't that be said about many other issues on this page?... I don't see what value it adds.

Because there have been other additions in the meantime, the section is now back to the size it originally was... which means I still have concerns about undue weight. How would you feel about moving part of it over to the article Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks (with an inline wikilink here)? I think the only part of this which is a "9/11 conspiracy theory" is that the men might have had advance knowledge of the attacks; that they were celebrating is not in doubt. Corleonebrother 19:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind if the material is moved to a separate article; however I'm not sure that the article you propose is the most appropriate place, as it would have to be re-written to account for the fact that the people involved were not Arabs. As you correctly pointed out, the key "conspiracy" part of this story is how much advance knowledge the 5 men had. That is really the point I have been trying to cover, I am happy for others to decide where the information goes. Also, as I mentioned some time ago I actually have more information relevant to this incident that I would like to add to the article - I am currently in the process of summarazing and referencing it. Logicman1966 (talk) 06:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Collaboration with Al Qaeda

The article states "MIHOP ("made it happen on purpose") - the strongest version suggests that key individuals within the government planned the attacks and collaborated with al-Qaeda in carrying them out." While many conspiracy theorists make this claim this theory is far from universal. Plenty of theorists claim that Bin Ladin was a sick man living in a cave and thus could not have carried out the attacks Edkollin 05:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Warnings given to individuals -- unsupported assertions

"Odigo traced the Internet address of the sender and gave it to the FBI." ^[3]

Up to that point, the statements are supported by the Haaretz article, but the following three assertions are not:

"The warnings did not specifically mention the WTC attacks ^{[citation needed]} but said that "something big" was going to happen in a certain amount of time^{[citation needed]} and ended with an anti-Semitic slur^{[citation needed]}."

In particular, the last allegation makes no sense at all. It may be OR or SYN. Wowest 07:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The reference for all three assertions is a statement by Odigo's vice president Alex Diamandis in the Washington Post on October 4, 2001 on page 24 (not online). In fact the message never mentioned an attack at all just "something big" which can be assumed to mean an attack. The actual wording of the message has never been released. I feel it is important to keep in the article as many use the message as a reference for a specific warning of the 911 attack to Jews (from Jews?) when in fact it more of an vague threat directed at Jews and likely unrelated to 911. I have read somewhere that the FBI did track the ISP and discounted it, although by refusing to disclose the sender the FBI have provided another point the conspiracy theorists use. Wayne 12:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Then you need to list the source? Wowest 21:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh. I see. It's a very-hard-to-verify source. Hmm. Wowest 21:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Mafia involvement in 9/11

I was told about two week before 911, by a old Italian man, who I believe to be a high-ranking member of the Cosa Nostra in Toronto, that "New York is filled with nothing but Jew garbage", and that "there will be such a big explosion in New York that all of New York will be underwater". This was part of a long ranting about how New York was trash and Jews were all trash. There was mention of the Twin Towers as well in this rant. This was at the end of August, 2001.

When I was watching George Bush speak after 911, when he was setting up the department of Homeland Security, he actually said something which peaked my interest. He said, and I quote, "Al Queda is to terror what the Mafia is to making money".

I believe that GWB knew of the Mafia's involvement in the planning of 9/11, otherwise he would never have made the statement above. Oh, and I did report what I knew about 9/11 after it happened, but was never responded to.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.105.202 (talk • contribs) 19:45, December 23, 2007

Claims relating to the hijackings

I recommend to put information about laser guided plane on the site. On YouTube there is a video named 2nd hit - "laser dot shot" which assumes that the plane which crashed into the south tower was a laser guided plane. The address of the video is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xB0msfbPecE Manmanwiki 08:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

If you have more reliable sources than a youtube video, go ahead. Even a blog is more reliable than an unsourced youtube video. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Noseoutframe.jpg

Image:Noseoutframe.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

No Mention of Gold Found At Ground Zero

This article doesn't mention the $200 million worth of gold (or however much it was) that was discovered around November 2, 2001, like a day before the FDNY was pulled from the site. And then Giuliani ordered the debris - that still contained remnants of people - to be trucked away. Knightskye 07:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

That's probably because the first mention of it was here. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:BE BOLD and add it...if you have a source for such a claim. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there a society for 'AE against 9/11 conspiracy'?

I know there are 'official' experts cited in the 'debunking' websites, but is there an actual non-profit movement of academics and professionals? If there were, I would still want to look at there bank records or living conditions pre- and post- potential payoff. It just seems to be quite telling that a few hundred people would put there names and reputations to a 'theory' and experts opposed wouldn't try to make their name in the opposite way. I know this is circumstantial but when there is _so much_ circumstantial evidence and so much missing evidence (for whatever reason) I'm ashamed(if only because I'm a minority) to say that I believe in the controlled demolition approach.

No other websites will even research this for me :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackpoupart (talk • contribs) 15:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is. It is commonly called the 9/11 Truth Movement. That said, I would love to understand how you believe in a controlled demolition, why planes were necessary, why the Pentagon blew up, and why another jet crashed? This page shows that those theories are not true and explains why. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The previous ~~sentence~~ paragraph in generally believed false, even by the so-called 9/11 Truth Movement. They (the Truthers) cannot agree as to which non-official theory they accept. As for Jackpoupart's question, it's there wouldn't really be a need for such an organization to support either "official" (as there would be "official" organizations) or "mainstream" (as basically everyone supports it) theories, so there probably isn't. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that there is no irrefutable proof for either the official theory or the conspiracy theories. The best we can say is the balance of probability in which the official theory has a advantage. Due to government secrecy (and incompetence) this state of affairs will remain. As long as there is doubt or inconsistancies with the official account there will be people willing to put their reputations on the line not to mention the kooks who accept either a CT or official account unconditionally which muddies the waters even more. Most truthers do not support any particular theory but accept the possibility and call for an investigation which is the aim of those who form groups. Discounting CT's is POV. Accepting CT's is POV. The only NPOV stance is accepting there are questions that need answers and that until this happens CT's are as valid a theory as the official account even if not to the same degree of probability. Wayne (talk) 03:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Come on, you two! I know you can be more logical than THAT! Neither one of you is typing anything that recognizably responds to the previous post(s)! Were there intermediate edits or something that got deleted? Oh, now Wayne comes along. Hi, Wayne! Wayne, you're out of date sequence now! Wayne -- I think you're basically correct, but the bottom line is that we do NOT know exactly what happened, and we are addicted to "knowing." In school, they teach us to guess on tests! In the real world, people who were trained that way have gotten into trouble, particularly if they were working as real estate agents and guessed, in talking to either the buyer or the seller, about what the other party intended. Sometimes that has been expensive. Meanwhile, in the television shows too many of us spend too much time watching, three magical witches are invariably able to "vanquish" the most amazing, murderous demons, consistently, in one hour, with time taken out for commercials. As I said, it's an addiction. Unresolved questions cause us to suffer, and in the case of something like 9/11, ignoring unresolved questions does not make them go away. Once the Truth Movement got as big as it is, "strawman" arguments, like the Popular Mechanics/History Channel exercises don't work either. They did that too late. We simply do NOT know, and there is nothing wrong with that. Maybe we can learn what happened, maybe we cannot, and it is possible to ask questions which we have no way of ever answering.

There is a nice, civilized debate about whether it's easier to argue for the Official Conspiracy Theory or any other theory in the two most recent letters in the letters section of http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters.html

I just came across a great example of doublethink, by the way! Simultaneously believing that the Bush Administration is too incompetent to have pulled off 9-11 and believing it is too competent to have the bin Laden impersonator mess up his lines in the "confession video."

O.K. --- BQ! --- Same question: If they just wanted to murder Honiok, why did the SS dress him up in a Polish uniform, shoot him and leave the body at Sender Gleiwitz on Oct. 31, 1939? The whole point of faking the attack on the radio station was to be able to blame Poland, so that the thousands of tanks which were already positioned on the Polish border could roll across the next morning, to fulfill the secret treaty with Stalin. Kinda like the prepositioned troops in the former Soviet Union the U.S. had ready for the Afghan invasion we'd been talking about since July! If the buildings had just imploded, why would anyone believe that Muslims did it? They needed all of the stage magic.

Arthur - I cannot tell which "previous sentence" you are referencing. That's called a "vague antecedent." If you look at the U.S. opinion polls over the past few years, ignoring changes with the passage of time because they asked different questions in every poll, 16 pct. of Americans believed in the controlled demolition theory two years ago, but a much smaller percentage believed that the U.S. Government did it, more recently. At the same time, 51 percent think we need a new official investigation with commissioners who do not all have conflicts of interest, 30 percent favor the immediate impeachment of Bush/Cheney and something like 75 percent think the 9/11 Commission erred in ignoring building 7. At the same time, in Muslim countries, the percentages vary, but in one country, only twelve percent thought Muslims were responsible for 9/11. I have no idea who these Muslims think did it, and bin Laden blamed "Jews" immediately after the attack. For me, it's about who I think is more honest, Bush or bin Laden. I'm not sure the word honest applies in such a comparison. Meanwhile? Wowest (talk) 04:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Sources? Kevin (talk) 15:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Look at 9/11 opinion polls Wowest (talk) 21:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Is it improper to but a {{failed verification}} tag on Wowest's previous paragraph. As for the origninal, my statement stands. The "Official Conspiracy Theory" is accepted, for the most part, by a vast majority. That 75%, if not made up, includes all who doubt some aspect of the OCT. For what it's worth, that would include me, as I think the study which showed the reduction in air quality was severely flawed. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Dude, you seriously need to read more slowly -- maybe aloud. I imagine you're pretty busy at work. When people read too quickly, even "trained readers," they miss words, and the words they miss tend to be words that conflict with their previously-held beliefs. You're selling yourself short. The 75 percent [who] think the 9/11 Commission erred in ignoring building 7 obviously includes people who do not believe in pre-planted explosives, but who think that speculation might have been laid to rest if ONLY the commission had addressed it.

Now, the other thing: According to polls (as best I can read them), roughly 1/3 of the U.S. population is calling for the immediate impeachment of Bush/Cheney for various reasons. Some people think Bush is too liberal. Roughly 1/3 of the U.S. population, (not necessarily the same 1/3 as previously), based almost entirely on Internet exposure, thinks that the government either pulled off 9/11 itself, or knew it was coming and deliberately let it happen. 51% think we need a new investigation. Some of those only want to shut up those of us who don't believe the Bush administration. Look at the projectcensored webpage sometime. Wowest (talk) 21:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

(talk) moved my post with the comment "reinsert Wayne's unjustified rant in order, even though it put's an unnamed section in a bad light".
What happened to assuming good faith and no personal attacks? The reason it was out of order was that it was a specific reply to several questions that Jackpoupart asked that were answered in a condescending way by several following posts that didn't actually give him an answer at all due to their bias. I have no problem with moving the post but find the comment offensive and uncalled for. Wayne (talk) 00:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

So, perhaps it was a justified rant. It was still a rant, not related to improving the article page. It was still out of order, and appeared to reply, in part to the (temporally) earlier comment which appeared later in this page. It made a later unsigned anon comment appear more disjointed than it already did, but it did put Wayne's contribution in the proper context. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The people that think that 911 was an "Inside Job" ask for a new invergiation. The Oficial Conspiracy Theory believers do NOT ask for a new investigation. People that do not like investigation has something to hide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.53.148.94 (talk) 15:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

There are many reasons people may not want a new investigation.

Don't expect to get any better (more complete) results, either because they believe the previous investigation to be complete, they expect the new investigators to be more corrupt or incompetant then the current ones, they expect all contrary evidence to have already been destroyed
Don't expect significantly better results to be worth the $millions required.
Want to put closure to the issue.

All quite good reasons. (Except that they believe the current investigation to be complete. That would be wrong.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

A collapse of skycrappers is very important. You should investigate a lot for knowing better about skycrappers security. When Titanic shrink, there was a International Conference about maritime security. Why not in the Twin Towers and WTC 7 collapse? Even if you believe in official version, you would want a better investigation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.53.148.94 (talk) 16:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions for improving the article?

Making the article shorter than the article about 9/11 might be nice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.195.45.75 (talk) 01:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

This article starts off pretty ridiculous, being an article on the twoofers, but what's more ridiculous is it uses twoofers as sources of information. They do that a lot. Alex Jones will claim something, citing Steve Jones, who uses Alex Jones as his source. One thins for sure, you will never be able to figure out who started most of this horse crap. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by D a r l i n g f a c e (talk • contribs) 02:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Connection between Dubai and 9/11?

I've heard that Dubai banks helped finance the 9/11 attacks and that Osama bin Laden, and other al Qaeda, did visit Dubai from time to time. I wonder if there's a connection between Dubai and 9/11. 68.36.214.143 (talk) 18:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Viewpoints of other 9/11 CT theories editors surprises this editor

Based on reading these talk pages it appears to me that the opinions of most editors range from disagreement to contempt toward the theories being written about here. I thought it would have been the other way around. I am curious as to why I am wrong about this. I do not want this to get into the tired old "bias" arguments.Edkollin (talk) 18:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Most of us are sensible. <insert smiley here>. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Many sensible (conservative?) editors don't require unambiguous evidence in support of the OT so have no problem discounting the possibility of CT's <insert smilie here>. They still do good work though in controlling the more extreme CT views. Wayne (talk) 01:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Think about the U.S. population, Edkollin. Approximately 1/3 of the population are sympathetic to the 9/11 Truth Movement. On the other hand, approximately 1/3 of the population still think Saddam Hussein had WMD's. We twoofers have had no media coverage at all until lately, with some cable channels now expressing overt hostility. This is progress.Wowest (talk) 02:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

That 1/3 includes those who believe the reports were incomplete (which may include me), even if they don't think the conclusion could differ, or that there was some US government incompetence which allowed the attacks, I believe. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

While we are talking about polls a new Scripps Howard one came out over the weekend which I have added to the 9/11 opinion poll article asking about several CT's including 9/11. 32% said it was very likely that "some people in the federal government had specific warnings of the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington, but chose to ignore those warnings". 30% felt it was somewhat likely 30% felt it was unlikely and 8% was in the don't know/other bracket[2]. Would the fact the survey was released Friday on Thanksgiving weekend be a conspiracy of some sort<insert whatever you like here>? Back on topic it is quite a leap to assume the Wikipedia 9/11 CT article editors opinions would reflect the American public at large. Not all of the editors are American for one. Edkollin (talk) 06:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

But thinking that the U.S. government had an inkling before the attack is far from controlled demolitions, directed energy beams, no planes, and a holographic WTC. I think the polls are taken wayyy out of context. Kevin (talk) 15:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

While you're at it, directed energy beams, a holographic WTC and no planes at the WTC are "far from" controlled demolitions and no jumbo

jet crashed at the Pentagon. Please don't conflate those things. I note that the survey only questions the LIHOP theory. I opine that most of the Truth Movement supports the MIHOP theory. Maybe we need more of a hierarchy of theories here. Some theories require senior, supporting theories. The OTC only requires ignoring the history of the CIA.Wowest (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree no energy beams but, find real things whch governemnt does use and which eywitnesses have seen. And, especially no missles hitting WTC. Since a radar hub emits high flashes of light ie. Top Gun shows it extremely well. The plane which eyewitnesses saw. And, Boeing lied about the plane is the E-10 J (Joint) Star. Pod underneath and windowless like eyewitness reports. And, is in fact a Boeing 767. http://www.afa.org/magazine/aug2003/0803command_4.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.189.135.113 (talk) 05:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

"Since a radar hub emits high flashes of light ..." ? Only those in commercial use, not the alleged military ones here. Using Top Gun as a source, indeed. I see we have one of the pod people here. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't get your knickers in a knot. I'm just saying all of your polls that 9/11 truthers hold so dear, most of them are taken out of context. Kevin (talk) 03:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The new poll was designed to test belief in conspiracy theories in general not 9/11 conspiracies in particular. There was only one 9/11 question with no follow up. The survey did what it was designed to do it found widespread belief in conspiracy theories. The 9/11 question at best hinted at widespread belief in 9/11 conspiracy theories. You can draw no conclusions at all from the survey as to why 62% of the public believes officials did not act on "specific" advance information Edkollin (talk) 07:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

In that case, it would primarily be measuring the lack of trust in the U.S. Government since, say, 1964, although rare, earlier usages of the term "conspiracy theory" can be found dating back to 1910 or thereabouts. The meme has the built-in connotation that there is something wrong with believing such a thing. Wowest (talk) 10:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Basically agree that this is what the poll reports. But the news service reported it as "Selected results from a Scripps poll about conspiracies" so we have to use the cites wording Edkollin (talk) 20:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the reason that so many of us who edit this article don't believe in it is because such articles tend to attract not just believers but also skeptics, and skeptics, who typically want evidence, are much less likely to be banned for vandalizing these articles than the believers are and are more able to keep within the constraints of Wikipedia and understand the NPOV policy better. As such, we have a much lower attrition rate, so over time more active skeptics than believers will accumulate on this article. Once it is less publicizied we'll probably start disappearing as well, because everything will have been refuted and the article will become essentially stable. Titanium Dragon 06:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm Interesting explination. To me the ultimate skeptic in a broad sense is a person who believes his own government would try to murder his fellow citizens. I understand why a non-believer might be a better editor but I would figure a believer would have more interest in the topic and thus more "staying power" not lessEdkollin 17:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC).

Tobias Jaecker

I've restored the link to Tobias Jaecker's well written Netzeitung article. Jaecker is a bone fide print and broadcast journalist, a producer and editor for Radio Eins Berlin who has spent some time on secondment to Chicago Public Radio. His commentary, in German, complements his 2004 monograph: "Antisemitische Verschwörungstheorien nach dem 11. September. Neue Varianten eines alten Deutungsmusters" (Münster: LIT Verlag) ISBN 3-8258-7917-8". This fellow isn't just some loudmouth with a blog. Google makes a decent effort of translating it into understandable, if not perfect, English. --Tony Sidaway 18:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Some suggestions for improvement of this article

I think this article doesn't associate conspiracy theories enough with anti-semitism, a proven effective way of preventing people from taking the time to investigate these nutty claims. It could also use some extra straw man arguments about UFO's and secret weapons perhaps. On a side note, I'd like someone to explain to me why the theory about some Arab's conspiring to bring 2 buildings down and damage a third isn't a conspiracy theory. Joehoe665 (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100%. Who needs evidence of chemical sulfidation of steel, squibs, 1341 F heat in the basement, eyewitness testimony of explosives, tons of steel being shot horizontally during the collapose, building falling at near freefall speed, eyewitness testimony of molten steel, concrete being turned into powder, small metal spheres found by Steven Jones (implying molten steel) or high quantities of 1,3 diphenypropane. All of these point to controlled demolition and should be included in this article so people can make up their own mind. But nevermind that, lets just have more 'ufo space beams brought down the tower and NIST is unbiased and has not been criticized for either conflict of interest or having misleading reports' jargon in here. El Juche (talk) 21:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Village Voice Article about Giuliani Business ties

The article claims that "Rudy Giuliani—whose presidential candidacy is steeped in 9/11 iconography—has been doing business with a government agency run by the very man who made the attacks on 9/11 possible." The detailed article is about his consulting firms relationship with Qatar. The article does not accuse Giuliani of a 9/11 conspiracy directly therefore it is probably not article worthy at the moment but the 9/11 conspiracy theories article does deal with the Bush-Bin Laden family relationship. What we would need is a reliable or notable source using this article as "proof" of a conspiracy. I decided to discuss the article because of its possible future use and I guessed this is a topic that editors would be interested in [3]. Edkollin (talk) 22:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't look related to 911 other than a case of a Presidential candidate putting greed ahead of a moral obligation he claims to be following. The Bush-Bin Laden relationship on the other hand deserves inclusion as it was (if OBL was behind it) an enabling factor in 911. Wayne (talk) 02:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

This article is much too long, and clearly biased

This "article" reads like a 9/11 Conspiracy Manifesto. In every section, there are numerous conspiracist claims that are covered, with scant (if any) rebuttals mentioned, and the sections all close with some more conspiracist arguments.

First, there is no need, in an encyclopedia, to cover every angle of the conspiracy theories. If people want that much detail, they can follow the external links or read the reference materials. Second, there is no justification, in an encyclopedia, for presenting such a slanted review of the topic.

This article needs to be pared down considerably, and balanced, to make it encylopedic.

The Oracle of Podunk 04:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

_______

There are reasons for it being that way. This is a conspiracy theories article and not a rebuttal of conspiracies theories article. There are numerous theories and sub theories with theories and different alleged motivations for the same theory. The article in some way has to reflect this confusion. Encyclopedias are supposed to deal with fact so dealing with theories is inherently unencyclopedic. The article on neoconservatism goes to great length to describe the beliefs and the arguments for that theory and gives less time to criticism's of it. And that article just has to deal with one thoery!! Pairing it down to highlight the more "notable" or "reliable" theories involves original research. Why force the reader to do more work?. The argument could be turned around on you if the reader does not want detail the reader could look at the summary section. That being said I do agree with you that the article has changed in nature over the last 6 months. The article still does a good job of describing the general arguments against the theories and the mindset of the people who espouse them. What it does not do now in a way it did awhile back is give the point by point rebuttal's to individual theories. If you think the article is unreadable now go back in the archives and read those. Of course which version is better is a judgment call for you to make Edkollin (talk) 05:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

_______

An encylcopedia should state just the facts, and not be a platform for convincing people of this theory or that. The article on neoconservatism doesn't even come close to this one. It is a very encyclopedic article. It does not, as you suggest, provide arguments for neoconservative ideas. It only states very plainly what those main ideas are, without giving any reasons why they might be valid.

This article on 9/11 conspiracy ideas is the opposite. It doesn't simply state the basic ideas that conspiracists have, but also provides a laundry list of reasons the reader ought to consider those notions to be valid. That's not the job of a good encyclopedia article, and it will keep this article from being judged a good article.

My complaint about the dirth of rebuttal points wasn't meant to be understood as you took it: that there aren't enough rebuttals. I meant that they appear only to serve the purpose of convincing the reader, by virtue of the seeming lack of good rebuttals, that the conspiracist rumblings are well-founded. All these argument points, peppered with occassional rebuttals, make the article read like pro-conspiracy propaganda.

I never said anything about eliminating reference to all but the "reliable" conspiracy notions. Frankly, none of them is reliable. That's not what I mean by the article needing to be pared. What needs to be pared from the article is all the "reasons" that are given to bolster these conspiracy notions.

You can make all the excuses you want, but the fact remains this article will not be deemed good until it is shorter and less controversial, and that won't happen until it is trimmed and the appearance of leading the reader to a conclusion has been removed.

The Oracle of Podunk 07:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Take a short part of the article that you think is an egregiously biased and rewrite it here in the talk page otherwise I fear we will go round and round Edkollin (talk) 08:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

_______

The reason it reads like that is because of the sheer amount of factual information that goes along with the claims in question. You can claim bias all you want, but the reason there is so little criticism of the claims is because there is in actuality very little that can actually be refuted. To me, the idea that the article should be pared down even though there is clearly an abundance of relevant factual information at hand simply because you say that "none of them is reliable" reeks of its own kind of bias. Wallacefan (talk) 03:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

A problem with removing "reasons" is that POV editors would jump on it as an excuse to delete the claim entirely. The theories do not have to be "well founded" but only possible (and sourced). If they were not remotely possible then they would not be in the article at all. Rebuttals are fine as long as they are legitimate. As it is some of the rebuttals are stretching the bow a bit but I have no objection to them either. I do agree that some theories are covered in too much detail. For example one of the longest sections covers a theory that the vaste majority of conspiracy theorists see as a crackpot fringe theory. Wayne (talk) 05:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The best solution to the length of the article, as well as the divergent hypotheses included within the topic, would be to split the article into separate articles for the major theories. This would allow an expansion of those theories that can be verified (the existence of the theory as political and social phenomina can be verified) through cited sources. Keep the article as an primer to a category of articles on 9/11 conspiracy theories, but fork out to individual articles for major theories that are independent of each other. - Michael J Swassing (talk) 05:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there even an article for criticism of 9/11 conspiracy theories? Because if not, it makes sense to have a little more coverage of the criticism in this article. The criticism section of this article doesn't address any specific debunkings of the theories really, just states that people have opposed conspiracy theories.

-Razorhead, December 25, 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 08:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Specific debunking is difficult because there is no hard evidence to disprove many of the CT's. They are opposed mainly due to being unlikely or better explanations being available. Most of the reasons for debunking are already in the article. Currently CT's are here only in outline and detailed debunking would require the CT's to be presented in a lot more detail to counter them. The trick is to get the balance right to avoid an overly long artical. Wayne (talk) 14:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm slowly re-writing it, focusing on reliable sources. A big problem with this article is a lot of original synthesis, where primary sources are used to "source" particular opinions or theories. However, there's rarely, if ever, any reliable sources explaining why the theory is notable, or giving it any coverage at all (WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE). The big ones, yes. But, as you can see, a lot simply are not. I've been marking primary sources as such, and will eventually move to trim material that has no coverage in secondary sources. Right now, I'm rewriting sections that seem to display these problems the worst. --Haemo (talk) 19:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Change the name of the article

The word 'conspiracy' has a negative connotation to it, and people neutral to the subject may come to this article and think such theories to be bogus from the start because of the title we give them. Perhaps '9/11 alternative theories' or 'Alternative theories of 9/11' would suffice.

--Benjamin Thomas Krueger [구태양 (具太陽)] (talk) 09:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose...No. Conspiracy is a plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act, Ergo, that's what the name of the article is. Kevin (talk) 13:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Concur. "Conspiracy theories" are exactly what this article is about. Mr Which ??? 13:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The official theory is also a "conspirative" theory. The Government said that attacks was a conspiracy of Al Qaeda. So, all theories are conspirative. The attacks was a conspiracy, or Al Qaeda conspiracy or a Government conspiracy (or both). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.53.148.94 (talk) 16:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Negativity is in the eye of the beholder. After all many conspiracy theories that had even less support than these have proven true over time. Wayne (talk) 14:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

9-11 was caused when the world trade center fell to the ground and many people were killed in this insident in 2001.also the goverment was not responceable for 9-11.we all do not know how this happend but,the pentagon was also hit as well.how could that happen on the same day?even i do not know what happend on that fear ful day.i was only 6 years old at the time it happend.so......may all the people who died in this insident rest in peace!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.161.175 (talk) 01:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Change. "Conspiracy theory" is a dismissive, pejorative term. "9/11 alternative theories" or "Alternative 9/11 theories" would be better.

Retain. "Alternative" would just be wrong. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Retain - people need to go back and read the arbcom statement on this dispute. Remember, this is a view held by a small significant minority (per WP:FRINGE) - and thus ought to be treated as exactly that. The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose attempt to give credibility to conspiracy theories. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Look up "conspiracy" in the dictionary. This article is about theories involving conspiracies involving the September 11 attacks. "Conspiracy theory" is not a pejorative term any more than calling someone an authoritarian or a dictator. Yes, these words have negative conotations maybe, but that's because they are used to describe things that are negative in nature. Conspiracy theories, for the most part, are retarded.

Now, my own personal opinions about conspiracy theories themselves aside, anyone who thinks that calling this article "9/11 Conspiracy Theories" is misleading is way, way too sensitive about the issue. There are plenty of people who believe in "alternative theories" and aren't afraid of being called conspiracy theorists. I have a friend who prides himself on that label. So grow up and stop getting butt-hurt about the article's title.

-Razorhead December 24, 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 07:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Academic sources actually do make the point that "conspiracy theory" is used as a pejorative in the media and academia. However, that's still what these are called in both, so the name should stay. --Haemo (talk) 19:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

non-chance theories are all conspiracy theories Change it. Everyone seems to have completely missed the point in this discussion. Even if you agree with the mainstream view, it is a conspiracy theory, albeit of Muslim terrorists. If you think the CIA or some essentially non-Arab/Muslim group was responsible, it is still a conspiracy theory. The plot is a conspiracy. The phrase 'conspiracy' theory should only accurately be applied to events that mainstream adherents claim are the result of random events. No one seriously contends these events were chance, so everyone agrees it is a conspiracy, whether you are talking about the main listing or this listing, so to be accurate, you should change the name to Alternative theories.--S. McIntire Allen (talk) 10:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

140 KB way too long

This article is far too long. I remember in 2006 I tried to branch off the controlled demolition theory section into its own article and got shot down, and now it has been. But it seems that a lot of material is still in this article. I'm going to start being bold and chopping up the article as people have suggested unless someone comes up with a good reason not to cut it up that way. Titanium Dragon (talk) 00:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Please realize that this refers to readable text not merely the size of all the bits to make the file. As the prose is only ~80 KB, this article is fine with respects to WP:SIZE. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I am in favor of giving readers as much reliable and/or notable information as possible not less. I find that there are a lot of times when editors go on space cutting sprees that bad things tend to happen. Some examples of this are information left in with the cites for them getting cut or visa-versa, information being out of order, facts being left in without proper context and "important" information being edited out. Then I or other editors have to reedit it. It takes a lot longer to look at the history edition, relocate the cites, figure out how and what to put back and do it in a logical order it does to the "cutter" to select and delete. I am not saying you would do that and I am sure that is not your intent but I have seen enough of this to think to myself "Oh no not again" when this type of topic comes up. Instead of being bold give us an example here in the talk pages of what you intend to do. None of the above means that more sub articles are not a good idea Edkollin (talk) 05:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Reread WP:Size; it suggests a prose length -half- that of this article. And I'm not suggesting removing information (thoguh I'm sure there's lots of junk in here; there always is) but rather splitting off subarticles and -removing text-. The demolition theory section should be cut a LOT in this article because it has a subarticle devoted entirely to it; that's half the point of the subarticle. Titanium Dragon (talk) 11:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Putting in a proposal for the lot shorter controlled demolition section since even I agree with you about that would be a start. Then after that then your ideas for other sub articles Edkollin (talk) 04:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree that the article needs shortening, and I agree with whoever requested a split of the foreknowledge section a while ago. I went ahead and made this split; 9/11 advance-knowledge debate is the new sub-article, which I necessarily had to change a little bit to make it into a rounded article. Please comment on the page. Ed, I understand your concern about careless splitting, but the foreknowledge section was an obvious contender and it needed doing... I have no plans to split off any other sections. I agree with you about the controlled demolition summary needing to be shorter. Corleonebrother (talk) 20:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I have moved material relating to foreign governments over to the Responsibility page, as most of it was duplicated over there anyway. Other parts (e.g. Israel) were covered by the new article, so I was able to reduce it down to a single paragraph summarising the relevant section on the Responsibility page, with a see also link to both that and the new article. I think its a big improvement in clarity as well as helping with our size issue here. Hope nobody thinks it is awful... Corleonebrother (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I just cleared out a large bit of the controlled demolition section. I think that it is now an appropriate length. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 01:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

My edits to this article

I've been going through the article and removing parts that I don't think belong. I am doing this for three reasons: 1) to shorten the article. 2) to remove poorly sourced or bogus assertions. 3) to remove pro-conspiracy nonsense from the article. If anyone has any issues with any of my edits, please take them up with me here. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Reasons 1 a legitimate reason to edit an article. To remove poorly sourced assertions is also a legitimate reason to edit an article. Determining what is bogus is Original Research determining what a reliable or notable source is the editors job. The line between what is bogus and non-reliable is fine one but a crucial one. In most articles reliability should trump notability but the opposite is true for an article about theories. Reason 3 is not by any stretch of the imagination a reason to edit an article and borders on POV violations.

As for The Controlled Demolition section the section was to long since the section had a sub article. It is now to short and POV. Specifically the second paragraph dealing with criticisms of the theories is longer then the first paragraph. Criticisms of the theories belong in the section but that should not be the purpose of the section. The section as now written states the obvious there is this thing called controlled demolition theories. This line of conspiracy theories are the most discussed of the 9/11 theories even in publications that are highly critical of the conspiracy theories therefore a section about them deserves more weight(including the criticisms). Specifically a the section should summarize 1. The various types of controlled demolition theories 2. The reasons supporters of these theories believe in them. 3. The reasons people are critical of them.Edkollin (talk) 04:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your POV allegations. Reliable sources say that the Twin Towers were not brought down by explosives and we must be careful to stress that point in the summary of the CD article.

I don't think we need to list the reasons that CD proponents believe in CD; that's what the CD article is for. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I also do not think we need a listing but a summary. Something along the lines of "Proponents of the theories citing amateur videotape and news footage say the way the buildings and the time it took for them to collapse it is likely or could only happen via controlled demolition not from plane impacts alone . Proponents also cite various eyewitness accounts describing "explosions" or a "bomb" going off. The collapse of building 7 has generated particular interest because of its high profile tenants such as The CIA" etc. Various broad categories of Controlled Demolition theories such as the thermite was used should be listed. The fact of that most "reliable" sources disagree theories has never be issue and have always had a place in the article in one form or another. Their criticisms of the theories and/or why they believe plane impacts caused the buildings to collapse should be explained in summary form. But I do believe since this is a section about CD theory section not a criticism of CD section the CD theories themselves should be given more weight. In that regard a criticism of 9/11 conspiracy theories sub article should be considered.

A good example of a summary section is the historical precedent section. Just because there is now a subarticle is not a reason to have a almost meaningless section. Doing so in this way is a classical example of correcting an error by going to far to the other extreme. If one disagrees with me and feels that having a subarticle means having only the most bare bones section to be used to have the reader link to the subarticle why not take that way of doing things to its logical conclusion just leave an external link. That would end the arguing over what to put in a section. Edkollin (talk) 22:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggest adding British MP Michael Meacher to "main proponents"

I suggest adding British MP Michael Meacher to "main proponents" at the bottom of the page.

He was one of the main proponents of the idea of an inside job, and was the main figure along with former german minister of defence, Andreas von Bülow in a Dutch documentary that aired on nation wide national dutch television, and so also must be considered one of the most well known proponents of the "inside job" theory.

His Wikipedia bio article cites his 2003 suspicion of LIHOP not "inside job". I would look for more current remarks to see that he still holds these views or if those views have evolved. Edkollin (talk) 05:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, Meacher doesn't go round saying he thinks it was LIHOP. Meacher is just sharply critical of the investigation - he may believe the ISI were involved, he may believe (or suspect) that there was a deliberate military stand/slow-down, we don't know - he is mainly just critical that leads were not followed, and that blame at the FAA/NORAD/Administration was not assigned, and how the neocons have used 9/11 for their own gain. For this reason, I don't think he should be added. A lot of prominent people sit in this grey "just asking questions" area. Corleonebrother (talk) 20:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I answered your LIHOP/MIHOP question on your talk page. The 2003 information was from a Guardian Unlimited column he wrote[4]. In it he pointed wrote that 'The former US federal crimes prosecutor, John Loftus, has said: "The information provided by European intelligence services prior to 9/11 was so extensive that it is no longer possible for either the CIA or FBI to assert a defence of incompetence.'". Even though that is not a direct quote of his it is a strong enough hint that he would fall under the 9/11 CT theorist as the article defines it(or used to before the changes). However he is quoted in his BBC profile[5] as saying "I do not believe conspiracy theories. I am not a conspiracy theorist," "I do believe the American people, and particularly the widows of those killed, are entitled to answers to these questions.". He might believe it is not a theory because it is it fact. Bottom line he probably is a 9/11 CT theorist but as of now the information is old and he disputes the characterization so he does not belong. Edkollin (talk) 06:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Theories

What the the criteria for a theory to be added to this article . There seemed to be alot of WP:OR ,WP:NPOV and WP:Nonsense here?Gnevin (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Can't someone reply to this , as far as i know this entire article could be deleted as per the above policy's Gnevin (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This article comes up as the second listing on Google's search for "9/11", don't even think about deleting it. Bofors7715 (talk) 00:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed true that the alternate opinions and theories of 9/11 range from scientific to paranormal, but this discrepancy does not negate the existence of those theories. An idea need not be backed up by fact nor provable to have an explanation on wikipedia. The Flying Spaghetti Monster has its own wikipedia page, and is without doubt pure fabrication. There are many who believe in a 9/11 conspiracy, and this page is here to explain that belief. We respectfully do not post conspiracy theory entries on the "official story" page, nor do we ask that it be deleted. The same favor in return would be appreciated. Wizzlepig (talk) 23:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

External Links etc

I cleaned out the external links section (pro and con). Wikipedia is not a link farm and many of the links fail WP:EL. The section was far too large for the subject and included videos of uncertain copyright status, links mainly intended to promote a website, sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject etc. In general, there was too much link farming going on. As you add links please make sure they follow WP:EL and that the section doesn't grow into another advocacy section. RxS (talk) 02:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This is an explanation I can live with.--Joseph.nobles (talk) 04:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer reviewed paper contradicting NIST

Just a heads up. I should have said "debunked" NIST but I'm not a physicist so don't want to make a judgement. This paper has been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication by a mainstream technical journal. They expect it to be published in around 3 months. Wayne (talk) 12:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent paper - it actually confirms NIST ( ie that the fire never got hotter than 600(ie 560) - ps about what my kitchen stove can reach, aint melted or sagged yet,thanks NIST, maybe my wife will use the oven again)Glad to see someone find a peer-reviewed paper that confirms what anyone who has ever used a kerosene lamp already knew - PHDs aren't all a waste of space it appears( of course I suspect even NIST knew that kerosene can't melt/weaken/.. steel).Of course the part of the paper saying that something was a lot hotter than kerosene, well the research appears exhaustive - maybe NIST or Popular Mechanics can explain to us how microscopic analysis can be fooled into showing high/very high temperatures. 159.105.80.141 (talk) 14:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Iraq Conspiracy Theory

CHENEY and others have suggested that Iraq had some part to play. I also believe that many americans believe this. It could be placed under 'Official Conspiracy Theory'. 03:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)~

This was discussed in the article but moved to a subarticle. While the the splitting of the articles has been more more organized then I anticipated this is the unfortunate effect I feared. Be that as it may he following is from the subarticle Responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks

Immediately after the attacks, rumors began that Iraq could have played a role. The state-run Iraqi media praised the attacks but denied that Iraq was responsible.

On June 29, 2005 Robin Hayes, a Republican Congressman from North Carolina and vice chairman of the House Subcommittee on Terrorism at that time, stated "evidence is clear" that "Saddam Hussein and people like him were very much involved in 9/11". Senator John McCain reacting to the Congressman's statement said "I haven't seen compelling evidence of that"[97] The 9/11 Commission Report stated that there is "no credible evidence" that Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq collaborated with the al Qaeda terrorist network on any attacks on the United States. In September 2006, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence concluded that "there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein had prewar ties to Al Qaeda and one of the terror organization’s most notorious members, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi" and that there was no evidence of any Iraqi support of al-Qaeda or foreknowledge of the September 11th attacks.[98]

Despite this, a number of 9/11 opinion polls have shown that a significant minority of the American public believe that Saddam was "personally involved". NewsMax.com reported that people within and outside the U.S. government believed that then Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein conspired in the 9/11 attacks and the Oklahoma City Bombing.[99] The theory extended from the one advanced by investigative journalist Jayna Davis in her book The Third Terrorist linking Hussein to the Oklahoma City Bombing. It was discussed in an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal.[100]

Notes: Polls taken in 2007 have shown that around 30 to 41% of Americans believe Saddam was "personally involved" in the attacks. As for your original question it should not be in the "official theory" section because the 9/11 commission report disavows that theory and as used to be in the article President Bush eventually disavowed it (While he and Cheney strongly hinted at it they never explicitly said that. They said and still say that Iraq was involved with Al Queada}. Edkollin (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I'm archiving this section because 1) it's dead, and 2) the RFC and the mediation case make it obsolete. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 01:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see section RFC below.

~~The result of the proposal was It was requested that this article be renamed. The result was no consensus for move 199.125.109.98 (talk) 05:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)~~

This is vandalism. It is entirely inappropriate for an anonymous IP to pronounce the end of a discussion. In any case the issue is currently awaiting attention from the mediation cabal and is therefore not finished. When it does finally come to archiving the discussion, please remember, whoever does it, not to miss most of it out like this person did. ireneshusband (talk) 09:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I concur. It is entirely inappropriate for an anonyomous IP to pronounce the end of a discussion, even if that end is obvious. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 09:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It feels good to be able to agree with you on something at least :) I should take this opportunity to say that I appreciate the way you have been willing to compromise on the renaming issue. ireneshusband (talk) 10:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't be silly. It is obvious that this RM has been open way too long and is going no-where. Close it and leave the RFC open. You don't need both, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to close it. Fess up - the actual situation is that you have never closed an RFC before and you can't understand why an IP user is closing it? Well I closed it because it was obvious that it needed to be closed, upon the request of user:Andrewa, below. 199.125.109.98 (talk) 13:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

For starters. Good faith editing is never ever vandalism. Ok, now that we have that bad faith assumption identified and cleared up. While I'd generally agree that IP's shouldn't close requests like this, have you looked at this particular IP? Active since the middle of last year with no apparent connection with this topic. And while you're thinking about that, think about this...in most cases, an IP is less anonymous than a username is. There are exceptions of course, using your real name, personal info on your userpage etc....but this was not as inappropriate as all that. I'd encourage the IP to get a username to avoid issues like this but many people don't want that...that doesn't mean they are automatically excluded from taking part in these debates. RxS (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Caveat to the following discussion: If you wish to concur or oppose this move, please do NOT discuss your political views as a basis for the move. A discussion of whether the source of the attacks were in accordance with the mainstream view or not does nothing to further the understanding of what the name of this page should be, and there are more appropriate places to argue viewpoints. Thanks.--S. McIntire Allen (talk) 07:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

To short circuit this, I propose a speedy close, per WP:SNOW. The recent discussion which shows virtually no support has been archived or deleted, and it's been discussed and rejected at least 6 times. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The editor who requested this move added his rationale to an inactive discussion, which I've archived. I agree that we should speedily close this request because the same move was requested and rejected under two months ago. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

All the discussion I have seen does not address the word use issue. Everyone is getting emotional about the facts, instead of addressing the meaning of the word conspiracy. To repeat: a conspiracy may be defined as: "any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result. ^[4] All these theories are conspiracies, unless you think the acts were random events. I have not seen one person respond to this linguistic issue. Just forget about the politics for a moment. Thanks.--S. McIntire Allen (talk) 08:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Linguistic issues are inappropriate. We report what WP:RS say, not what is grammatically correct. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

"Linguistic issues are inappropriate"? This entire site is one big linguistic issue. Respectfully, I don't see your point. Do you think we should ignore the definition of the words we use on WP? All the conventions of WP are for determining the linguistic style to be used, and if we ignore the most basic definition of a word, then we are not accurately reporting what people say.--S. McIntire Allen (talk) 07:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Linguistic issues are inappropriate. Our articles describe the world as it is described by reliable sources, not as it would be described by the grammar police. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This proposal is about the title of the article, not the content. Titles of articles are covered by different guidelines, as described below. ireneshusband (talk) 05:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I support the move proposed. Gindo (talk) 13:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Here are two similar cases worth noting, as "precedent".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_theories_of_the_bombing_of_Pan_Am_Flight_103

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_theories_regarding_the_CIA_leak_scandal Gindo (talk) 14:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. If there is a reason why these precedents are not relevant, we should hear about it. ireneshusband (talk) 05:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, does someone want to dig up the previous move proposals and rejections from the archives. I still say that the previous rejection is too recent to be revisited without, at least, providing a new reason. "Linguistic" reasons, indeed. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is the most recent rejection: Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories/Archive 16#Change the name of the article. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 17:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

When Reliable Sources are calling Richard Nixon as tricky Dick, should we rename our article? We make our own judgements, being an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. I say "Alternative theories" supplies far better information than "Conspiracy". The redirect will always be there. I can understand the fear of giving undue credulity to the theories, but on the other hand, they can't all be true, so the fact that they are plural is indication enough that they are unreliable. support move. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 22:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, wikipedia is built by consensus, in (con-spiracy) theory, at least, so if the opponents of the previous move maintain their position, ~~I am happy to conlude a draw and therefor no action taken.~~ Alas.  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I strike my remark and no longer agree to the current title, in the light of new evidence of deliberate violation of policy. See: #a more honest title.  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 15:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

If you:

support the move because you believe in a non-mainstream conspiracy theory, please do NOT use that as a reason why you support the move. You are only hurting your own case.
oppose the move, please explain to me why the mainstream view is not a conspiracy. Thanks.--S. McIntire Allen (talk) 07:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This, not being properly linked, (in spite of my trying to get it right with the original requester not even making an attempt), is not an appropriate RM section. But my reason for keeping the article name as it is is that that is what WP:RS such as the New York Times actually call it. They never used "tricky Dick" outside of editorial sections, so the comparison doesn't apply. The fact that the theories are unsupported by fact is irrelevant. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

My understanding was that this is now properly linked. If not, please let me know. Regarding your assertion of the NYT use of the term, if you indicated which article the NYT used the word we could accurately assess the reference. The name of the Pan Am and the CIA leak WP articles cited above clearly indicate that a neutral title is a standard practice on WP. I think we all believe WP ought to try to use the most accurate phrasing possible, and that means to rely on standard definition of terms. One of the definitions of conspiracy is ". . . any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result" and this would clearly include the mainstream explanation. Pointedly, no one has responded to indicate why the mainstream explanation is not a conspiracy.--S. McIntire Allen (talk) 02:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

There's hundreds...thousands of uses of the term in the media...NYT [6] BBC [7] CNN [8]

You don't have to look very far to see how wide spread the term is (and how it's used). As far as how the accepted version is referred to, that might be best brought up on the September 11, 2001 attacks page, I'm not sure what that has to do with this requested move. This is a recurring request that has been roundly rejected in the past and will almost certainly be rejected in the future. RxS (talk) 05:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theory is a pejorative term. I remember a year ago that User:Morton_devonshire swore blind that it wasn't, but his user page was (it's been toned down a lot since then) covered in photos of people in tinfoil hats, accompanied by lots of derogatory comments. Unfortunately there were many other editors at the same time who took a similar approach. Fortunately it seems to me that the people editing this page now are generally conscientious and genuinely interested in maintaining and improving the quality of wikipedia. Nevertheless I think that this prejudice remains and is clouding people's thinking. Indeed it has been argued that the stereotype of the conspiracy theorist has been carefully nurtured by people who have things to hide. Here's something from a reputable source:

"'Conspiracy theorist' is a term that has been used as a thought stopper. If you say you don't believe in conspiracy theorists then that's ridiculous." David Ray Griffin, eminent theologian and philosopher.[9]

As a philosopher, Griffin has had to take great care when it comes to the relation between language and reason. In fact IMO, even among philosophers, Griffin has been particularly scrupulous in this regard, judging by his book "Unsnarling the World Knot". Therefore anything he has to say about the abuse of language should be taken extremely seriously. "Conspiracy theory" therefore should only be used if there really is no workable alternative. "Alternative theories" might not be perfect, but it is quite workable. ireneshusband (talk) 20:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Griffin? Serious? I've seen no evidence of that. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not with you. No evidence of what? ireneshusband (talk) 23:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean that you have seen no evidence that he has demonstrated a deep understanding of how language works and how it can be used and abused in his philosophical writings? Well you probably haven't if you haven't read any of his books. ireneshusband (talk) 23:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Griffin is hardly neutral on the subject...being a proponent of 9/11 conspiracy theories. He hardly qualifies as a reliable, third-party published source[s] with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. In any case, this isn't a question for a philosopher, even a retired one. RxS (talk) 21:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

What you are saying is that anybody who writes a book about something is not a legitimate source. In any case, Griffin's fact-checking is exemplary. He is a highly respected academic after all. Since when has being a philosopher not been a good qualification to deal with semantics and semiotics? Philosophers have to be very precise about the meaning of the words they use. In fact much or twentieth century philosophy has been entirely focused on language. In fact Griffin has been one of the more diligent in this regard, taking care to explain his precise meaning at every step of an argument.

If we are to use the same argument you are using, then why are Thomas Eager's views on the psychology of conspiracy theorists quoted in this article, bearing in mind that he is just a materials scientist and has no qualification in psychology? ireneshusband (talk) 23:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Coming to think of it, if David Ray Griffin is not a reliable source because he supports one side in the argument, then all the mainstream news organisations and goodness how many other sources must also be disqualified because they unanimously endorse the mainstream account of 9/11. So which is it? Do we ditch all the reliable sources and have to make our own decisions? Or do we accept David Ray Griffin as a source as reliable as any other? ireneshusband (talk) 04:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the BBC, NYT and CNN don't "support" any side of the argument. Griffin does, and that's the difference. The BBC reports, Griffin advocates and promotes. See the difference? RxS (talk) 04:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said, the BBC, NYT etc. all endorse the mainstream view of 9/11. Their reportage says that the story of the hijackers etc. is true, which obviously means that the all the other stories are false. Please explain how endorsing one view and rejecting another does not constitute "support" for one side of an argument against the other. ireneshusband (talk) 07:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I have looked into the matter of Griffin's "reliability" at Wikipedia:Reliable sources and its accompanying essay, Wikipedia:Independent sources. It comes as no surprise at all to find that once again your argument is self-serving and bogus. The stipulation about sources being "independent" is to make sure that editors don't, for instance, quote the sleeve notes in an article about a music recording. The only "interest" that Griffin has in the matter is that he presumably stands to make money from his books and his appearances as a speaker. If this were to disqualify him, then no academic whatsoever would count as a "reliable source" which would of course be absolutely absurd. It is a great discourtesy to other editors to throw the names of guidelines around if you haven't actually made even a passing effort to understand them properly. ireneshusband (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conflict says

Choose a descriptive name for an article that does not carry POV implications. For instance, what do we call the controversy over Qur'an handling at Guantanamo Bay? The article is located at Qur'an desecration controversy of 2005. Note that the title makes no statement about who is the (more) guilty party: it does not "give away" that conclusion; in fact the article itself draws no conclusion. Similarly, the article on the September 11, 2001 attacks does not assign responsibility for the attacks in the article name. See Wikipedia:Words to avoid for further advice on potentially controversial terminology.

This is pretty clear. The only question is whether the use of the term "conspiracy theorist" is pejorative and judgemental.

According to the main conspiracy theory article

In an early essay by Daniel Pipes "adapted from a study prepared for the CIA", Pipes attempts to pin down what beliefs distinguish 'the conspiracy mentality' from 'more conventional patterns of thought': appearances deceive; conspiracies drive history; nothing is haphazard; the enemy always gains; power, fame, money, and sex account for all. (Daniel Pipes, in Orbis, Winter 1992: "Dealing with Middle Eastern Conspiracy Theories")

In other words a CIA analyst says that all "conspiracy theorists" have a rather simplistic mindset.

The main conspiracy theory article also says

The term "conspiracy theory" is used by mainstream scholars and in popular culture to identify a type of folklore similar to an urban legend, especially an explanatory narrative which is constructed with particular methodological flaws.

This view isn't properly attributed there, but it looks like it comes from George Johnson. By calling this article "9/11 conspiracy theories", you are saying that the views it covers are methodologically flawed, are you not? This is clearly in contravention of the guideline I have quoted above. Any flaws in the methodology should be dealt with in the body of the article proper.

Let's look at a few uses of the term in the media:

"This man is a frothing conspiracy theorist." Washington Post[10]

"It's unfortunate that a conspiracy theorist so disconnected from reality..." CNN[11]

"Bill Joy knocked as 'conspiracy theorist' by tech zealot" The Register[12]

"Now my contact - who is not a conspiracy theorist or fantasist" BBC[13]

"He [xenophobic ranting demagogue Umberto Bossi] is also a conspiracy theorist - alleging dirty tricks by everyone from..." BBC[14]

That's only some of what I got from a few minutes google search on "conspiracy theorist". I could come up with thousands more if I had time. They are all pejorative uses that imply that anyone who advocates a "conspiracy theory" is psychologically defective. It would be hard to find even one favourable use of the term that wasn't a conscious attempt to change its meaning the way that the meanings of "black" and "queer" have been changed.

Therefore, unless someone can provide evidence that the term "conspiracy theory" is also in wide mainstream use as a term that endorses the views it purports to describe, the current title clearly violates the guideline that the title should not prejudge the content. Therefore it should be changed. ireneshusband (talk) 00:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Look at what you just quoted; desecration is a word with bad connotations, just like conspiracy is. The most common term for these theories amount reliable sources is conspiracy theories. It doesn't common on the validity of the theories, nor does it comment on what they are about, or who holds them. The experts you've quoted above only state that most conspiracy theories have methodological flaws; some may not. This article takes no opinion on that in the title. Calling them anything else violates undue weight. --Haemo (talk) 00:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

"Qur'an desecration controversy" does not imply that the Qur'an was desecrated. However "conspiracy theories" does imply that what is in the article are nothing but conspiracy theories, with all the negative connotations that carries. Perhaps the article should be called "Allegations that alternative accounts of 9/11 are nothing but conspiracy theories". How does that sound? It's obviously what you mean.

The guidelines about "undue weight clearly refer to the content of the article, not the title.

Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority.

The guidlines for titles clearly state that the title should not prejudge the content. "Alternative theories" carries no judgement.

I know it sounds very impressive and authoritative to throw the names of wikipedia guidlines and policies around right, left and centre, but please do try and read them more carefully before you do so next time. ireneshusband (talk) 04:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory is how main steam reliable sources refer to this subject. There's no way around that and there's no reason for the change. Your arguments just don't hang together, for example you searched for conspiracy theorist when the topic at hand is conspiracy theory. As you saw above I showed how widely used the term is. You wanted to use Griffin as a source and I pointed out that the BBC reports, Griffin advocates and promotes which disqualifies him as a reliable source (for this purpose). This subject really is a waste of all our time here, there's no consensus for the move at this point. I think it's time for you to move on to another subject...RxS (talk) 06:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You and your predecessors have wheeled out that "Conspiracy theory is how reliable sources refer to the subject" truism whenever there has been a specific point presented to you that you cannot answer and that undermines the very argument upon which that truism is built. For instance why have you failed to answer Gindo's point about precedents for using "alternative theories" in other article titles? You have failed to explain how a news organisation or any other body that says that one version of events is true and that the other isn't is not taking sides. You have failed to explain how the "reliable sources" argument takes precedence over the part of the guidelines for naming articles that stipulates that the titles of articles should not prejudge their contents.

If I asked you who believes in "conspiracy theories" you would say a "conspiracy theorist" would you not? If conspiracy theories are what conspiracy theorists believe, and if conspiracy theorists are psychologically defective, then conspiracy theories are likely to reflect the defects of their proponents. In other words it means that a conspiracy theory is, almost by definition, a belief that is almost certainly wrong. Please don't be so ridiculously pedantic.

As for whether Griffin is a reliable source: Firstly, it isn't actually relevant anyway because the guideline I have cited above, that article titles should not prejudge the contents (Wikipedia:Naming conflict), is the one that applies here. WP:RS clearly talks about article contents, but doesn't mention titles. Therefore it can only help us to the extent that Wikipedia:Naming conflict makes use of it. If you disagree with this interpretation, then please provide chapter and verse. Secondly, you have not answered the question of why, if Griffin is to be disqualified from commenting because he has an opinion, other people and organisations that have an opinion are not disqualified? Is the criterion that only those who correctly articulate the mainstream account of 9/11 are reliable sources?

The subject is not a waste of time. The reason it comes up over and over again is because every time it comes up it gets derailed by slippery truisms that make no sense. Is this debate really more of a waste of time than quibbling over "conspiracy theory" versus "conspiracy theorist"? Is someone rubbishing books they have obviously never looked at a good use of our time? You claim to speak for everyone here. However half the people here are for changing the title. They may or may not be a consensus for changing the title, but I think you at least owe it to us to respond to our arguments honestly and directly. ireneshusband (talk) 09:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Essentially, the reason I initially made this move request was because I would discourage conspiracy theory from being used in the title of virtually any listing for any event that involves more than one person cooperating to bring about an outcome. Again, see the definition of the word conspiracy I referenced above. Regarding references:

Please don't quote CNN as an authority. If we adhere to the CNN mentality, we might as well pack it in now. A news network that has yet to do a story on BSE? How can that be an authority? Thank you for the references for BBC and NYT. However, I think that depends on which theory they are talking about. For instance, a slightly non-mainstream theory would not be an alternative theory to them, and we are looking for a comprehensive term to cover all the alternative theories, from the kooky ones to the only marginally alternative theories.
Also, one could argue that in time the BBC and NYT will come to call the theories something else as they have done in the past with theories initially not recognized by the mainstream. Our goal should be to take a less time-specific view of events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcintireallen (talk • contribs) 09:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

ANSWER ME, ANSWER ME, ANSWER ME: All this discussion and still not a single person can explain to me why the mainstream view is NOT a conspiracy. If it is, then naming this page conspiracy is clearly not accurate. This was my move request (he writes, jumping up and down like a three year old throwing a temper tantrum), and all I want is a simple answer to this question.--Mak Allen (talk) 09:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes! Why won't any of you answer this point? If you fail to do so then we shall have to infer that you have no credible answer. ireneshusband (talk) 09:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's your "reliable sources". It's eminent people saying that "conspiracy theories" are methodologically flawed fantasies. It's from an article called 9/11 conspiracy theories:

Critics of these alternative theories say they are a form of conspiracism common throughout history after a traumatic event in which conspiracy theories emerge as a mythic form of explanation (Barkun, 2003). A related criticism addresses the form of research on which the theories are based. Thomas W. Eagar, an engineering professor at MIT, suggested they "use the 'reverse scientific method'. They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion."[169] Eagar's criticisms also exemplify a common stance that the theories are best ignored. "I've told people that if the argument gets too mainstream, I'll engage in the debate." This, he continues, happened when Steve Jones took up the issue. The basic assumption is that conspiracy theories emerge a set of previously held or quickly assembled beliefs about how society works, which are then legitimized by further "research". Taking such beliefs seriously, even if only to criticize them, it is argued, merely grants them further legitimacy.

Michael Shermer, writing in Scientific American, said: "The mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking. All the evidence for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy. Such notions are easily refuted by noting that scientific theories are not built on single facts alone but on a convergence of evidence assembled from multiple lines of inquiry."[170]

If you have any evidence that these opinions do not broadly represent the mainstream view of "conspiracy theories", then please provide it.ireneshusband (talk) 09:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

These arguments have all been made before, although not necessarily with identical references, and found inadequate to support a move. 9/11 conspiracy theories is what this article is about, and is what they are called in mainstream works; 9/11 alternative theories is occasionally used, but for something completely different. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The fact that some other group of people made a decision at some point in the past has absolutely no bearing on this. The issue must be decided purely on its merits. You just trot out the same truism time and time again, even though I have clearly demonstrated that it does not apply in this context. You pointedly fail to answer not only that point, but also important points raised by other editors, namely that the term "conspiracy theory" does not clearly and objectively distinguish between mainstream and non-mainstream accounts of 9/11, and that there are indeed precedents for renaming articles concerning "conspiracy theories" in just the way that is being proposed now. Rather than repeatedly trying to remind us how tiresome we all are to you, please do us the courtesy of actually answering direct questions directly. ireneshusband (talk) 22:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You guys make a persuasive case. I originally opposed changing the title as I saw "conspiracy theories" as something with no negative connotations as they usually (if not always) turn out to be at least partially true as the passing of time allows more information to come out. However if the term is considered synonymous with a false belief by those who support the mainstream conspiracy theory then I have to support a name change. This is especially evident as those opposing a change have yet to make a cogent arguement for not changing.

"A small group of editors can reach a consensual decision, but when the article gains wider attention, others may then disagree. The original group should not block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision. No one person, and no (limited) group of people, can unilaterally declare that community consensus has changed, or that it is fixed and determined."

To satify those editors who don't want the subject treated nuetrally why not rename it "911 Alternative Conspiracy Theories"? Wayne (talk) 02:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

That is not too bad of an idea, but it would only be appropriate if we labeled the other theory "911 Mainstream Conspiracy Theory".--Mak Allen (talk) 08:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

9/11 Alternative Theories" would be MUCH better. The term "conspiracy theorist" has been synonomous with "nutcase theorist," or "conspiracy crank" since the 1960's. "Conspiracy theory" might technically be considered neutral from a linguistic standpoint, however use of the term cannot escape its pejorative "urban legend" connotations, now well-established after FORTY PLUS YEARS!! If anyone else thinks it would be a good idea to eliminate "conspiracy theory" entirely, I'll formally propose it. Apostle12 (talk) 02:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I quite agree. The oppose camp have failed to produce a single valid argument for keeping things the way they are, despite repeated challenges to do so. The relevant naming guidelines, as I have explained in some detail above and below, clearly state that the title should be as simply and unambiguously descriptive as possible for lay readers, and that it should not prejudge the contents. "9/11 alternative theories" fits the bill better than any alternative that I am aware of. Anything with "conspiracy theory" in it does not. To compromise on this would be to compromise the integrity of wikipedia as an encyclopaedia. ireneshusband (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

There's no consensus for the move, not by weight of argument or by numbers. We've been over this many times, if a minority of editors are not happy with that I don't know what to say. The problem is that on a regular basis, an editor will come along and make this demand and expect everyone to have an extended debate about it. No new information has come to light, no new arguments have been made. Wearing people down by making the same arguments over and over and over isn't an acceptable way to advance your position...if you can't accept this start an RFC or something in the dispute resolution process. RxS (talk) 02:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

If it keeps coming up, then there must be some support for changing the title. The above discussion does seem to favor a change, though the commenting editors have not signaled their vote as support or oppose, to make a clear stand. I would propose at this time that we formally open a vote, requesting involved editors to take a clear stand.Apostle12 (talk) 03:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

We don't really "vote" on this sort of thing, voting doesn't trump policy. I'd suggest an RFC or something else on the dispute resolution path. RxS (talk) 03:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the last time I was involved in one of these, we ended up with five editors who said Support, one who said Conditional Support, one who said Weak Support, and one who said Reluctant Support. Went ahead and moved the article to the new name, and everyone seems to be happy. Apostle12 (talk) 03:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

"Voting doesn't trump policy" – We've already demonstrated very clearly that the current name violates policy and that the policy which you say justifies the status quo clearly does not apply. You have completely failed to counter several of the arguments we have provided. Vague references to higher authority do not constitute a valid argument, especially when those appeals have already been demonstrated several times to be bogus. As for requesting an RFC (whatever that stands for), it may turn out to be necessary, but it doesn't change the fact that the honourable course of action for those who oppose the change would be either to counter the arguments with which they disagree by deploying well-reasoned and relevant arguments of their own, or to accept that they do not have a valid case and accept the change. ireneshusband (talk) 07:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You accuse those who support the move of providing no new arguments (whether or not that is true I cannot say), yet you only provide one single argument in defense of the status quo—"It's what 'reliable sources' call it"—which is the same argument that has been trotted out again and again at least since I first tried to bring up this issue, which was over a year ago. It has clearly been demonstrated to be bogus this time as it has been before. If it wasn't bogus, you would have been able to provide a counter-argument in its defense. You have failed to do so despite being emphatically urged to do so time and again. ireneshusband (talk) 07:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The 'oppose' people repeatedly claim they have explained themselves over and over, but they have not. The issue here as raised by the requester of the move, is to explain why the mainstream theory is not a conspiracy theory. Not a single 'oppose' author has even attempted to address that issue. Both camps are getting emotionally involved in your belief of the cause of the attacks. I am respectfully requesting you try to completely ignore the fact that we are discussing 9/11. Just think about the issue of explaining why a mainstream conspiracy should not be labeled a conspiracy, but an alternative conspiracy is labeled a conspiracy. Linguistically it is flawed. FORGET ABOUT THE POLITICS FOR A SECOND!!!--Mak Allen (talk) 08:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, I don't see that anybody has tried to bring up "what really happened" as an argument. What the rest of us who want change have been doing has been to use the opportunity to bring up other arguments that equally refute the case of those who are dedicated to keeping the name as it is. One of the long-term problems on this page has been that when this question has come up before, the opposers have managed to avoid the issue by changing the definition of "conspiracy theory" to suit the needs of the moment. That is why any attempt to win this argument needs to be multifaceted. Your argument is a perfectly sound one and the failure of the opposing camp to address it properly speaks volumes. ireneshusband (talk) 09:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

"It's what reliable sources call it"

As has been made abundantly clear already, the argument that "it's what reliable sources call it" does not apply here. Nevertheless, let's take a look at its implications if it did:

If the article is called "9/11 conspiracy theories" because that's what "reliable sources" call it, then it follows that only those theories that "reliable sources" label conspiracy theories are admissible in this article. What would they include? That the White House deliberately failed to act? Yes. That the Israelis were involved somehow? Yes. That it was done with space weapons? Yes. That it was done by a cabal of shape-shifting reptoids who have ruled the entire earth for thousands of years? Yes. That Al Qaeda did it in collaboration with Saddam Hussein? No.

This is a strange omission, is it not? We cannot attribute it to forgetfulness. The theory that Saddam Hussein was involved has much in common with some of the other theories: It is not endorsed by "reliable sources". It is believed by a significant number of people. It is a theory based on belief in an overarching conspiracy, namely the "Axis of Evil", which not only encompasses Al Qaeda and Saddam's Iraq, but also Iran, Cuba, North Korea and Venezuela somehow linked together under the umbrella of "international terrorism".

If this theory does not belong in this article, where does it belong? In the main 9/11 article? But the only reason for the existence of 9/11 conspiracy theories has been to keep fringe theories out of the main 9/11 article. Should it have an article of its own? As well as giving the theory "undue weight", it would mean that this particular piece of the picture would be somewhat orphaned. In other words the structure of the encyclopedia would have been distorted due to a perverse effort to make the content of the article conform to the title. Clearly the only sane option is for the title to match the contents, including elements that have yet to be written, but which naturally belong with the rest of the article, as the Osama-Saddam theory does.

By this standard, "It's what reliable sources call them" is false, because "them" does not describe everything that naturally belongs in the article. Therefore, even by the single (bogus) criterion that the opposers have proclaimed in support of their position, the current title is inadequate and must be changed. ireneshusband (talk) 09:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

In fact, what the Wikipedia:Naming conventions says is:

This page in a nutshell: Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

This definitely does not say that the name should be what the majority of "reliable sources" call it. So right away we see, yet again, that the sole argument of the opposing camp is completely spurious. It actually says that the name should ideally be the one that is most recognisable, whether or not it is the label most often used, and that it should be the one that is most recognisable to English speakers, not just to mainstream news outlets and academics. (The word "generally" is used because it is reasonable to make exceptions in order, for instance, to minimise bias, to avoid unnecessary controversy or to avoid causing unnecessary offence.)

The rationale for this guideline is as follows:

The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists.

In other words this guideline is intended to combat jargon and convoluted or weird verbiage. "Alternative theories" is none of these. It may be used less than "conspiracy theory" in the context of 9/11, but it is perfectly comprehensible and memorable. It is also in very common use. I found around 47,000 instances of the term on Google. Here are some typical examples:

An alternative theory of gravity
Human evolution: an alternative theory
In from the cold: alternative theory
Regret theory: an alternative theory of rational choice
an alternative theory of climate change
When does the propounder of an alternative theory become a denier...

As you can no doubt see, despite the fact that nearly all these examples are to do with science, the words "alternative theory" are perfectly comprehensible in each case, even to someone who doesn't have a clue what the rest of it means.

"Conspiracy theory" by contrast, is quite problematic. For a start, there are supposed to be two competing meanings in operation: the first is simply belief in a conspiracy; the second is the more limited and pejorative sense of a theory that is methodologically flawed, propounded by people who are psychologically flawed. If this is the case, one can hardly say that "conspiracy theory" is unambiguous. The former definition would include the mainstream account of 9/11 as Mak Allen has said. The latter would not (at least it wouldn't from the point of view of people who think that the mainstream account is not flawed).

There are a whole lot of other problems with the term as well. Here is an example: An allegation against Vladimir Putin (such as that Alexander Litvinenko was murdered on his order) would not be labelled a conspiracy theory, whereas a similar allegation made against Dick Cheney would be. Since (to my knowledge) there has never been a definition of "conspiracy theory" that accounts for this discrepancy, we have to say that the term is extremely poorly defined indeed. How on earth can anyone really say that they know what it means? Not only does "conspiracy theory" fail to be clear and unambiguous. It fails with great big shiny brass knobs on. "Conspiracy theory" is completely inappropriate as the title of this article because no one knows what it means.

In reality, in contrast to what I said a couple of paragraphs ago, the term carries negative connotations that are inescapable. I have already demonstrated from this that the term prejudges the content of the article and therefore falls foul of Wikipedia:Naming conflict.

However there is another implication of this that deserves attention: The term "conspiracy theorist" is a term of abuse, as in the patronising "A bit of a conspiracy theorist, are we?" There is no good reason for an article to have a title that is offensive when there is a perfectly reasonable alternative available. One of the reasons for the guidelines discouraging use of the term "Mormonism" is that it can cause offense (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints)). I don't see how the use of the term "conspiracy theory" is fundamentally different. Therefore, in addition to all the above reasons, the title of the article should be changed because it is offensive. ireneshusband (talk) 11:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Still oppose, but more weakly.
- WP:COMMONNAME does have an exception if the name is pejorative and not used by the people themselves. In this case, believers in the thermate theories call the directed energy weapon theories "conspiracy theories", so the term is in common use even among those who would be "named". Also, "[a] term can only be considered offensive if a verifiable, authoritative source can be quoted as citing it as such."
- Nonethess, 9/11 alternative theories is just wrong. An encyclopedic article under that name would be completely different. I'm beginning to think 9/11 alternative theories should be changed to a disambig page, with one of the links being this article.
- 9/11 non-mainstream theories may be a better name. However, 9/11 conspiracy theories does need to redirect to this article, under whatever name it appears.
This still disregards the multiple arguments previously given in favor of keeping this name, including the "principle of least surprise". — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

This just doesn't hold water.

First of all, on what basis do you assume that the fact that some people who believe in the thermite explanation choose to label another group of people "conspiracy theorists" implies that most people who believe in the thermite explanation would do so? You will not find any evidence to support this.

Secondly, why do some people who believe in the thermite explanation label those who believe in the space weapons hypothesis "conspiracy theorists"? It is because they believe that the space weapons theory is whacky, convoluted and just plain wrong, if not a rather whacky. The only reason they use this label is used at all in this way is because it is derogatory. This really should be pretty obvious, so I hope we don't have to go through the routine of finding "reliable sources" to say that this is so.

Thirdly, the fact that you have identified two different groups of people demonstrates that your use of the word "they", as if you were speaking of a homogenous group, is unjustifiable. This should be quite obvious to anyone who has paid any attention to the content of this article. The fact that the term "conspiracy theory" easily lends itself to this kind of confusion in itself renders it unsuitable to be the title of this article. It is also quite obvious that the particular thermite theory adherents you refer to have a very different idea of what ualifies as a conspiracy theory to your own. Again, this proves that the term is not in the least unambiguous and therefore has no place as the title of this article. The term "alternative theories" on the other hand, carries no such baggage.

"9/11 non-mainstream theories" wouldn't be too bad, but if we are to consider the principle of least surprise that you have mentioned, "alternative theories" can be grasped in an instant. And it's shorter. To my mind, the word "alternative" does tend to imply something that is less popular. For instance I would find it less surprising if someone said that Linux or MacOS is an alternative to Windows than if someone said that Windows was an alternative to Linux. If you really feel strongly about this then we'll both obviously have to look into this in more detail.

You refer to "the multiple arguments" previously given. If there are arguments we haven't heard yet then you must state them clearly. After all, we have been challenging you to do this.

Could you point us to the section of policy or guidelines that refer to the "principle of least surprise"? In any case, this cannot be a hard and fast rule, as we can see from the Mormons/Latter Day Saints example; other factors are also important and may (as in this case) take precedence, such as the need to avoid prejudging the content or to cause unnecessary offense. The need to describe clearly and unambiguously the content of the article must also take precedence; as I have already demonstrated, this is something that "conspiracy theories" fails to do. That said, I have already demonstrated that "alternative theory" is a commonplace phrase that communicates its meaning instantly and causes very little suprise. Can you provide any good reason to think otherwise?

In conspiracy theory it says that the term acquired its derogatory sense in the 1960's. This fact was sourced from "20th Century Words" (1999) John Ayto, Oxford University Press, page 15. So yes, there it is from a "verifiable, authoritative source": "Conspiracy theory" is derogatory. Therefore it is not fit to be the title of this article.

You say that "alternative theories" is just plain "wrong". That is neither here not there unless you can demonstrate the validity of your case to the rest of us. You say that an encyclopaedic article under that name would be completely different. In what way is that a bad thing? As I have demonstrated above, "9/11 alternative theories" is an encyclopaedic category that would complement the main 9/11 article much more successfully than "9/11 conspiracy theories" does. ireneshusband (talk) 23:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

9/11 alternative theories should be a completely different article. As it's not in common use, we should use it only in the general sense, including both this article, and theories offering only minor interpretation differences from the mainstream theory, such as questioning whether the official story as to whether the air force tests interfered with the ability of the air force to intercept the hijacked planes is correct. So, I strongly oppose your proposed move to 9/11 alternative theories, and weakly oppose a move to 9/11 non-mainstream theories. "What reliable sources call it" isn't adequate, according to policy; but if no reliable sources call it by our name, it's still WP:OR (The google test is not adequate, although it does show that no reliable sources use "9/11 alternative theories" with that precise spelling.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. I dont see anything wrong or pejorative about "conspiracy theories". Do you have a theory about 9/11? Does it involve people conspiring to deceive? Then it is a conspiracy theory. It is not that "conspiracy theory" itself is pejorative, it is that so many theories about conspiracies are worthy of pejoratification (sic). For every "Lee Harvey Oswald was framed", there's twenty "Elvis is alive and is being kept at Area 51 by the Feds". I'd also say that the reams and reams of text makes me think of WP:SOAPBOXing, which weakens your case. Just say that you think it should be moved, and be done with it. Dont go on and on and on for 60kB, because people wont even bother reading it. Callmederek (talk) 15:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Although you don't see anything pejorative with the term "conspiracy theory" it seems that people writing the article conspiracy theory did, as the article says "The term is also used pejoratively to dismiss claims that are alleged by critics to be misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish, irrational, or otherwise unworthy of serious consideration" and there was consensus about this.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 15:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Callmederek's comment here is nothing more than personal opinion and entirely without merit. The only reason for my "reams and reams" of text has been that those opposed to the change have pointedly refused to respond to many of the arguments used to support it, but have instead supplied little more than personal opinion "supported" by gross misreadings of wikipedia policy. Because to a casual reader these might still seem like proper arguments, I have had to go to great lengths to refute them. Academics often write at great length. It's called being thorough. ireneshusband (talk) 23:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment: It seems to me that most people would recognize the term "conspiracy theory" more readily than "alternative theory". In academic circles, the latter term may be more common, but academics aren't the target audience of Wikipedia. --clpo13_(talk) 10:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

In what way would the phrase "alternative theory" be difficult for a lay person to comprehend? ireneshusband (talk) 02:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough. "It seems to me that most people would recognize the term 'conspiracy theory' more readily than 'alternative theory'." There's nothing in my statement about comprehension. --clpo13_(talk) 02:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

comment The mainstream view is about a conspiracy. An article called conspiracy theories has the implicit suggestion that it presents an alternative: "conspiracy", to a non-conspiracy. It is much more clear to label the article: alternative theories, or better: alternative accounts, or something like that. The current title suggests that it would comprise all known theories on WHY Al Qaida and other terrorist might have done this. It's confusing, and I support the move. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 20:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose from evidence below.

- "9/11 alternative theories" -wikipedia = 273 GHits
- "9/11 conspiracy theories" -wikipedia = 91,900 GHits

Wikipedia should be the last to change because it is a tertiary source. When secondary sources use "alternative" more than "conspiracy" it will be ok to change page's title but not before. Mcmullen writes (talk) 20:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Basically you are simply repeating the "reliable sources" argument, which has been shown time and again to be entirely bogus. True, how widely used a term is in general discourse is certainly a major consideration according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions. However it is not the be all and end all. Wikipedia:Naming conflict specifies that an article's title should not prejudge the content. Every time I bring this point up I am met with total silence. Why is no one willing to challenge my interpretation of Wikipedia:Naming conflict if it is wrong? ireneshusband (talk) 02:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Wikipedia:Naming conflict only suggests ignoring the general Wikipedia:Naming conventions where a title is POV. I agree with the majority here, "conspiracy theory" is not POV. The argument that its POV is itself a subjective argument, and seems not to have consensus. Llamasharmafarmerdrama (talk) 18:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

What is subjective? 1) The term is derogatory (not a subjective claim, check conspiracy theory for istance) and 2) we should choose the most neutral term available (not a subjective claim, it's a policy: WP:NPOV). So what do you think is subjective?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. You hit the nail on the head when you pointed out that Conspiracy Theory is a defaming and belittling phrase. If these so called "theories" had any sort of validity I could understand entertaining the notion of a name change, but as it is to consider the 9/11 conspiracy theories as "alternative theories" would be a grievous insult to the word alternative. These theories are denounced as total hogwash by 99% of educated engineers and scientists (no matter how many ignorant rednecks or bored college kids would like to pretend they are true) so welcome to reality. What's next? Are we going to have to start labeling the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as a "alternative history"? Where does it end? Hyperion395 (talk) 06:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent move requests

I've had a quick look at the archives of this talk page, and in the last six archives there are three sections of interest:

There may be others, I'll have a more thorough check when I have time. Andrewa (talk) 18:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's one more:

Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories/Archive 1#The Move
- See also Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories/Archive 1#Title vote (conspiracy theories vs controversy) which immediately follows The Move discussion.

There don't seem to be any other sections in the archives headed Requested move, but there may be other move requests if the discussion section was given some other heading, or relevant discussions I've missed... this was a quick scan only, and I only automated that one search. Andrewa (talk) 18:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate discussion 1

The open RFC below reads This is a dispute about whether the name of the 9/11 conspiracy theories article should be changed to 9/11 alternative theories because the mainstream theory is also a theory of conspirators. That appears to me to duplicate this requested move, which is listed at WP:RM as 9/11 conspiracy theories → 9/11 alternative theories. Surely it is pointless to have both discussions in progress at once? Andrewa (talk) 23:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Please reopen this RM if a new consensus is obtained as a result of the RFC (rename the above section to Old Requested move and create a new Requested move section). 199.125.109.98 (talk) 05:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Theories of Jewish involvement

The claim was not that all Jews skipped work in the WTC that day, the claim was that all Israeli Jews skipped work in the WTC that day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.147.241.183 (talk) 00:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

So, is this true, or not? If so this would indicate Israeli foreknowledge, which is the not the same thing as proving Israeli (or Jewish) involvement in a conspiracy, so please don't accuse me of encouraging anti-Semitism. Comments? Apostle12 (talk) 02:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as this article is concerned, the main relevant issues are how widely held this belief is (i.e. its cultural significance) and to what extent "reliable sources" endorse this view. One thing I can say in this regard: a good few 9/11 researchers think that theories such as this are pure disinformation designed to trick 9/11 sceptics into tarring themselves with the anti-semitism brush. ireneshusband (talk) 07:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Good points. But what are the facts? Did it come down that way? Were any Israeli Jews among the casualties? Apostle12 (talk) 07:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

According to The Jerusalem Post, five Israelis were killed; one in each of the planes and three in the north tower. It's already in the section under discussion. And before anybody says "You-know-who owns the Jerusalem Post," their names are confirmed by all the sources. They're all Hebrew or European names, too, so it's reasonable to assume they were Jews. <eleland/talkedits> 08:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

While I appreciate that it is important to get this question ironed out, this talk page is intended for communication directly related to editing the article and not for general discussions about 9/11. ireneshusband (talk) 11:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Eager's credibility

The criticism section cites Thomas Eager's views on conspiracy theorists. However Eager has himself been accused of participating in the cover-up for 9/11 by Jim Hoffman. In other words there is a question mark over his credibility and his motives. To be more specific, Hoffman claims in an annotated transcript of an interview with him in a Nova documentary that Eager deliberately mangled not only the facts but the science, making the kind of errors one would expect from a schoolchild.[15][16] The case he puts is a strong one that anyone with a reasonable grounding in science will be able to validate without need of an external source. How can this be reflected fairly in the article? ireneshusband (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

In other words, a 9/11 conspiracy theorist accused an expert of being part of a cover-up, and attached his work. Do you have any criticism presented in a reliable source? Because his say-so is not enough. --Haemo (talk) 06:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you ever seen the demolition of buildings? They blow them up, and they implode. Well, I once asked demolition experts, "How do you get it to implode and not fall outward?" They said, "Oh, it's really how you time and place the explosives." I always accepted that answer, until the World Trade Center, when I thought about it myself. And that's not the correct answer. The correct answer is, there's no other way for them to go but down. They're too big. With anything that massive -- each of the World Trade Center towers weighed half a million tons -- there's nothing that can exert a big enough force to push it sideways.[17]

If this materials scientist knew so little about structural engineering that he didn't even know how a building would collapse, yet he saw fit to provide an "expert's" perspective on the collapse of the Twin Towers, you would think he would have the decency not to criticise Steven Jones for being "a physicist, not a scientist", which he does in the article cited here.

In a building that is mostly air, as the World Trade Center was, there would have been buckling columns and it would have come straight down before it ever tipped over. (ibid)

He is clearly implying that some buildings are not "mostly air", which is plainly absurd. Anyone can understand that. From this he makes a scientific inference about the building collapse. Yet in the quote in the article, he is criticising others for misrepresenting science. This is not the only example by any means. It is clearly inappropriate to have an "expert" with such low standards as Thomas Eager cited in this context. (And before anyone says "reliable sources" or "original research", because I can see it coming, you don't need "reliable sources" to justify removing a section of an article; you are allowed to use common sense in editorial decisions.) ireneshusband (talk) 07:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, so let's see — you're asking us to disregard an expert's opinion because you believe they display poor judgment in their explanation, and because a 9/11 conspiracy theorist says he's part of a cover-up. The Utah News thought he was credible enough to cite as an expert — apparently you don't. That's super — but your opinion of his credibility does not override that of reliable sources. The fact that he's wrong might be "common sense" to you, but that's not a compelling argument. --Haemo (talk) 01:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The issue is not that Eagar showed "poor judgment in his explanation." The issue is that Eagar, a materials engineer, has admitted that he hardly knew the first thing about structural engineering on the day before 9/11. Yet afterwards he claims to have become such an expert that he feels able to pronounce that what demolition experts say about what their job requires is nonsense. This means that he is plainly unqualified to comment on the collapse of a building or to pass judgement on anyone else's explanation for that collapse or on their character. What's more, Eagar had the nerve to criticise Steve Jones for commenting on matters outside his field of expertise. You don't need to be an expert in anything to see for yourself from this that Eagar is incompetent and dishonest. Common sense tells us that it is inappropriate to consider such a person qualified to pronounce either on matters of structural engineering or on someone else's competence as a scientist. If you think that common sense does not tell us this, then please tell us why. And before you inevitably cry "reliable sources", may I remind you that a decision to exclude something from an article can be made for all kinds of reasons and does not necessarily require the approval of "reliable sources". Therefore it is quite reasonable to use some common sense in making such decisions. If you think that common sense has no role here, please explain why.

In any case, why are you so insistent on keeping the Eagar quotes in the article? After all, if his view is so widely held, there must be a dozen others who have said pretty much the same thing as him. Why can't we have a quote from one of them instead? Wouldn't that save us all this unnecessary argument? If such a quote cannot be provided, then we can only conclude that Eagar's view is not so widely held after all, in which case it is clearly being given undue prominence in the article. The number of weasel words in the paragraph in question suggest that this may be the case.

Naturally these weasel words will either need to be changed into fully specific statements or deleted.

The only element in the paragraph that isn't dodgy in itself is the citation from Barkun. However it is fairly obvious from Barkun's book that he is talking about grand and totalising conspiracy theories of the kind once addressed by Hofstadter, and not the other theories covered by this article that do not involve aliens, Zionists, Illuminati or the New World Order. Clearly definitions of the term "conspiracy theory" differ markedly from person to person. Therefore it is inappropriate to include a blanket statement about how "conspiracy theorists" think unless the term is clearly defined for that particular context. It is also not clear from the wording whether Barkun is directly referring to 9/11 in this context, or whether he is just being brought in to bolster up the reference to "conspiracism". If it is the latter, then this would amount to original research and would obviously be inappropriate. Obviously a big tidy up is needed here too if we are to keep any of this paragraph. ireneshusband (talk) 17:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It's amazing how readily people feel that so-called "common sense" overrides our policies. I would think that if your only objection to a source is "I think he's not qualified to say that", and a reliable source has explicitly endorsed him as an expert, you've basically admitted to a desire remove information sources based on your original research because it conflicts with your point of view. If there's a dispute over his credibility, then produce a source and we'll talk about it. Otherwise, there's really nothing to talk about here. --Haemo (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability has absolutely nothing to do with it because this is not about creating content.
The policy on original research, while it should certainly be a consideration in this case, is not rigidly binding because this is not about creating content. It is about deciding which of the available material should be included and which discarded in order to make the best possible article.
There is no rule that says that simply because someone has been deemed an expert by a reliable source, their pronouncements must automatically be included in an article. There are a number of possible reasons why this would be undesirable, the need for articles to be of manageable length being the most obvious.
Now that I have shown that there is no absolutely binding reason why this material should stay put, it's time to consider the matter of common sense.

Is it reasonable to consider a person who admits to not having had a clue as to how a building would collapse to be an expert on questions of structural engineering relating to the collapse of buildings? What does your common sense tell you?
Should a materials engineer who, by his own admission, did not know how a building would collapse, but who nevertheless tries to pass himself off as an expert in the matter of building collapse, be taken seriously when he says that a physicist is less competent than he is to explain the collapse of a building? What does your common sense tell you?
Should a man who makes pronouncements about things he obviously doesn't really understand be taken seriously when he accuses anyone who disagrees with his analysis of not understanding the principles of science? What does your common sense tell you?

Newspapers quote all kinds of people. For instance they quote Bono on matters relating to global poverty, but that does not make Bono an expert on economics. Has Eagar's explanation of the collapses of the Twin Towers been peer reviewed? Does Eagar have the training and experience to be considered an expert in structural engineering?
I have already said that if you can find a more reliable source to say exactly the same thing that Eagar is saying then I will accept that that person's views should be included in the article. If you cannot find such a source, then what we have is the opinion of someone talking about something he knows relatively little about without any other sources to back his opinion up. Is that an appropriate thing to be included in wikipedia? What does common sense tell you? What does policy tell you? ireneshusband (talk) 05:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Ireneshusband, quit harassing Haemo. It's evident by now that when it comes to Wikipedia policy, you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. The project would be best served if you refrained from editing or discussing any 9/11-related articles. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

If I have no clue about wikipedia policies, then you will have no trouble pointing out where my interpretation of policy in what I have said above is in error. As far as "harrassing haemo" goes etc, please post such nonsense on my user talk. It doesn't belong here. This section is about whether the paragraph about Thomas Eagar has sufficient merit to be worth keeping in the article. Nothing else. ireneshusband (talk) 06:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

What policy? You're trying to circumvent policy by citing common sense, which, quite frankly, is lacking on your end. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I have laid out a detailed argument justifying why there is scope for using common sense in this case. Please point where my argument is in error. Vague brush-offs just don't cut it. You seem to think that policy requires that a statement of Thomas Eagar's views be included in this article. Please could you tell me which particular section of which particular policy we are talking about here? ireneshusband (talk) 08:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No, you have said "I think he's wrong, and here's why". That doesn't cut it, and citing common sense doesn't change that fact. If it's "common sense" that he's wrong, why can't you produce a single reliable source to dispute his statements? If there's a real disagreement over the validity of his opinions, then that disagreement should be documented in sources which we could cite — I'm not willing to disregard the opinion of an expert because you think he's it's "obvious" that he's wrong. --Haemo (talk) 19:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Since when have we needed "reliable sources" to determine what is common sense? Where in WP:COMMON does it say anything so absurd?
I asked you what your own common sense told you about considering a man as blatantly incompetent as Eagar an authority on structural engineering or on scientific method. You have pointedly refused to answer. Why, if you have nothing to be afraid of, can you not answer such a simple question?
I asked which wikipedia policy requires that Eagar's thoughts be incorporated in this article. Why are you unable to direct us to this policy?
Can you provide a suitably qualified reliable source, such as a structural engineer, to confirm that Eagar is competent to make pronouncements on structural engineering?
Can you provide a reliable source to confirm that Eagar, an engineer, is more qualified than Steve Jones, a scientist, to determine what is or isn't sound scientific method?
You say we need something to cite. But citations always accompany text. No citation is needed when the text has been deleted. Why then do we need somebody to cite? ireneshusband (talk) 14:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:ORis about what kind of material you are allowed to publish and nothing else. Which policy says that we are only allowed to not-publish material if the not-publishing of the material is not original research? Assuming that such a policy existed, would this mean that any material that is not-published in wikipedia must be accompanied by footnotes to justify its not being published? Should those footnotes be published or not-published? ireneshusband (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Not having read any of Eager I have just spent a few hours researching him. Thomas Eager is interesting. Eager calls his own investigation of the collapse a "back-of-the-envelope analysis". Is this scientific and reliable? He claims "No designer of the WTC anticipated, nor should have anticipated an aircraft impact" (he says to do so would increase the cost of building by 100 times). He claims that there was Thermite in the WTC.

Accidental thermite reactions are a well-known phenomenon. Given enough mingled surface area, molten aluminum and rust can form Thermite and react violently. Given that there probably was plenty of molten aluminum from the plane wreckage in that building it is entirely possible that this is what happened.- Thomas Eager

Eager has also been debunked by MIT professor J. King because Eager's explanation requires the laws of gravitation to not be linear. Eager claims objects with the same proportions react differently to gravity according to their size. He also claims that the weight of the buildings was sufficient to overcome the load bearing resistance of the lower floors and cause near free fall speed (in other words pancacking would not slow the fall as it would in shorter structures). In a NOVA interview Eager claims demolition companies are lying when they say placement of explosives is what causes a building to fall in it's footprint. He claims all buildings naturally fall in their footprint. Eager then claims that fires covered entire floors with temperatures of 300 degrees that caused the steel failure because softening of the steel is cumulative and irreversable. Eager supports the "Zipper" theory which NIST debunked.
Now I get to Eagers paper on the collapse: He implies the buildings were poorly constructed to save money. He ignores the existance of reinforcing beams. He assumes 9X more fuel than the aircraft had when they hit (assumes full tanks and 100% of fuel staying on the floor). He assumes steel has no thermal conductivity. Overall Eager is speaking outside his area of expertise and is wrong on so many points that he can not be considered a RS. Many 911 conspiracy sites are more accurate than he is. Wayne (talk) 14:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yet you cannot find a single reliable source to dispute his expert opinion... --Haemo (talk) 19:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It is certainly an eye opener that reliable sources fail to dispute obviously rediculous claims, they are extremely quick in debunking CT's. For example Eagers views on Gravity contradict every other scientist on the planet (maybe we should alter the WP page on Gravity to reflect Eagers "expert opinion" that Einstein and Newton are wrong?). NIST themselves debunk almost all of Eagers claims yet no reliable source mentions it. This in fact brings up an interesting point. Should undeniably false/incorrect single source information be assumed to be reliable and relevant because no RS has specifically debunked it by name although the information itself is debunked by RS's? Wayne (talk) 04:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

And you cannot find a suitably qualified reliable source to establish that he even has the expertise in the first place. ireneshusband (talk) 15:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Eager: professor of materials engineering and the head of the Department of Material Science and Engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology with an extensive research background on the effect of welding fumes on the lungs of laboratory animals. After publishing his paper debunking CT's he was appointed to the National Research Council Committee on Homeland Security.
I was going to dispute Eager as an expert on the WTC until I found that there is a Supreme Court ruling on what constitutes an "Expert opinion in a field of study". A person "can be qualified as an expert without formal training or education by virtue of his or her experience over a meaningful period of time during which a person develops a working expertise in a certain area". This actually came up in the case of Thomas Eager claiming expertise in toxicology in a 1999 court case. Eagers expertise was based on "periodic discussions with a toxicologist over a three year period". By this legal standard we can call many truthers experts. Wayne (talk) 17:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I only realised yesterday that my last edit was wrongly indented and was (as I hope was obvious) a reply to Haemo and not a rejection of anything you (Wayne) were saying.

As for what you say, I don't see those who want to keep this page the way it is rushing to endorse truthers as reliable sources, and in any case, Eagar fails the common sense test. I think this is a delete. ireneshusband (talk) 08:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you propose points against Eager that involve actual Wikipedia policy on sourcing, and I don't mean WP:IDONTLIKE? John Nevard (talk) 18:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Why have you suddenly turned up out of nowhere to do Haemo's and Rx StrangeLove's work for them? That really doesn't look good.

I have already made a detailed argument. It's not my fault if nobody can be bothered to address it. If there is really something wrong with my argument I am sure you will be able to go through it point by point and tear it apart. So go on then. Do it. Demolish it. ireneshusband (talk) 19:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It has been addressed, repeatedly. You instead, as Wayne does, claim it's "common sense" that he's wrong, and we should exclude his opinion on that basis. No one buys that, because it's not common sense that he's wrong, and indeed we have reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy citing his opinion as correct and authoritative. If his opinion is wrong, or disputed, produce a source disputing it. Otherwise, as John said, WP:IDONTLIKE doesn't cut it. --Haemo (talk) 19:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You don't have an argument that draws on Wikipedia policy. Eager is notable as a real, honest expert who bothers to address the more consistent aspects of the 9/11 conspiracism cottage industry.

I'll have to concede your point on my strange appearance. Not everyone can make Jzg's life harder like some of the people who edit this article -- my edits on this article pale when compared to SallyForth. John Nevard (talk) 22:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

IMHO the Eagar quote must stay in the criticism section because it is informative about the critics that have been made (maybe there could be an issue about the "due weight" we should give to him. On the other hand if there was subsequent debate or replies they also should be at least metioned or linked (with the due weight) to have a complete information.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 21:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy DO NOT always fact check nor are they always accurate. NIST debunks many of Eagers claims so are you suggesting NIST are not a RS? Eager is speaking outside his area of expertise which you bring up often to prevent the inclusion of some theorists claims. You want RS that Eager is possibly wrong? You need look no further than Einstein as Eager claims the current theory of Gravity does not apply to 911. I find this the most disturbing at all since it can be so easily debunked by even schoolchildren. While he may make some valid points he is not reliable enough overall unless you allow a similar standard of reliabitlity for conspiracy theorists. Wayne (talk) 05:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Then produce a reliable source disputing Eager's claims in this article. Don't handwave at Einstein — if it's "easily debunked by even schoolchildren" then surely you can produce a reliable source debunking it. --Haemo (talk) 05:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources bend over backwards to avoid disputing anyone who opposes conspiracy theories. Eager claims that Gravity is not linear in his 911 paper. If no one comments on it do we still consider it correct? It is patently wrong but ignored by RS. If I were to now say the sky is green, I can by your arguement, go to the WP page and edit it to say that. As long as a RS does not say I'm wrong it can stay? Try it and see how far you get. Wayne (talk) 18:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

So, in other words, no? If you have multiple reliable sources saying the sky is green, and no reliable sources disagreeing with it, then yes, go ahead and add it. The standard, after all, is verifiability, not truth. Of course, you're not going to get very far with your hypothetical. --Haemo (talk) 22:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly my point. Every RS says Gravity is linear but you claimed earlier that because none have mentioned Eager saying it is not (a requirement for his explanation of the collapse) we have to accept his claim for the article. Wayne (talk) 11:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

(1) What do you mean when you say that gravity is linear, and (2) What specifically did Eager say that is in contradiction t othis principle of "linear gravity"? Dsspiegel (talk) 07:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

RFC

This is a dispute about whether the name of the 9/11 conspiracy theories article should be changed to
9/11 alternative theories because the mainstream theory is also a theory of conspirators.

The term "conspiracy theory" connotes much more than "explanation of events involving criminal collusion," it refers to theories of vast overarching conspiracies which control and manipulate broad sectors of society, suppress evidence, and silence critics. As you already know. Go away. <eleland/talkedits> 09:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
But the article does not only include theories about "vast overarching conspiracies which control and manipulate broad sectors of society", it also include theries about minor coverups or foreknowledge.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 14:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not true that the only argument presented in favor of keeping the article title is "that's what it's called by reliable sources". That's an adequate reason, it the absense of a new (i.e., not previously rejected) reason for moving it, but it's the only reason presented this month. I've been involved in previous discussions, but I can't figure out where in the archives they've been placed. It's the proposer of a significant edit who needs to research the relevant history, not those who recognize a consensus for stability. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

No. The current case for changing the name stands on its own merits. If your argument against it is "There are lots good arguments against this, but I can't remember what they are," then that is your problem. In any case, I proposed this change a little over a year ago and one thing I can definitely say about the "debate" is that the quality of conduct and argument provided by the opposing camp was not any better than it is now. Then, as now, they refused to address my core argument that the guideline that titles should not prejudge contents should be the deciding factor. Instead they bombarded me from all sides me with non-sequiturs, arbitrary personal opinions and gross misrepresenations of wikipedia policy. The only difference between then and now is that this time we have at least been spared the sight of the person who proposed the change being threatened with banning. It was bullying and nothing less, and because I was an inexperienced editor, I didn't know how to deal with it the way I know how to deal with it now. So you really suggest that we should just roll over and accept a decision made through that kind of process? Is it reasonable to expect someone to wade through pages of such garbage on the off-chance that they might find an opposing argument actually that has some merit? ireneshusband (talk) 00:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Strongly support: "Conspiracy Theories" is derogatory and desultory - merely an attempt to suggest that any alternative belief, even something so small as a dispute over timeline, implies belief in some broad conspiracy. Bulbous (talk) 02:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Ugh This RfC is ridiculous. The community has, repeatedly, resoundingly rejected this proposal. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

This comment is an oppose, by the way. Apparently I hadn't made that clear. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 17:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It was one of your side who suggested the RfC. It is indeed ridiculous. As I said before, the only honourable thing to do would be either to address the key elements of the pro-change case directly or to concede that you have no case and let the change go ahead. ireneshusband (talk) 00:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

First, I don't like the implication that my opinion is dishonorable. Second, my issue with this RFC is that a small group of editors continue to waste everyone's time by asking for this page move over and over again with small intervals in between. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

All I am saying is that you should either address the arguments for this proposal directly, for instance by demonstrating that it is an incorrect reading of Wikipedia:Naming conflict to hold that titles of articles should not prejudge their contents, or you should concede the case and let the move go ahead. I did not use the past tense ("the honourable thing to do would have been...") although I freely admit that some of what has been going on in this discussion has left me feeling distinctly uncharitable.

You say that it is "a small group of editors" who are wasting everyone's time, but it's not the same editors every time, is it? The current situation is absurd and in violation of wikipedia guidelines. New editors come, they see this and they try to do something about it. I tried it over a year ago and I found the experience so harrowing that I didn't log into wikipedia again for nearly a year. That doesn't say much for the quality of discussion then, does it? That time I had assumed that other editors would indeed act in good faith and I got creamed. So perhaps you will forgive me if I no longer have any patience for obfuscations, red herrings, gross misrepresentations of wikipedia policy and so on.

If there is no case for change, then you would be able to refute all the core arguments in favour of change, but clearly you cannot. If anyone is wasting anyone's time it is those who willfully misrepresent wikipedia policy in order to push their own agenda, while ignoring real wikipedia policies and guidelines, such as that names of articles should not prejudge the contents (Wikipedia:Naming conflict). ireneshusband (talk) 04:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The premise of your argument is flawed. You have assumed that the title has prejudged the contents, but it has not. The term "conspiracy theory" is not used pejoratively in the article, and it is what the reliable sources call these theories. Furthermore, the sources do not use the term "conspiracy theory" as a pejorative term to refute the arguments made by conspiracy theorists. Reliable sources use things such as facts and logic, which are two qualities that are often missing from the arguments of those wishing to push conspiracy language into the article. Also, I suggest you read WP:AGF. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

ICB, how does WP avoid propagandistic use of terms with negative connotations? Are we supposed to ignore them, or rely on their use by reliable sources? What I mean is this: The term "conspiracy theory" has negative connotations. You think that the content of the article is not prejudged by this fact, or else you think that the term does not have negative connotations. However, there is no evidence to back up either of those positions. In any case, if no one can make an argument that "alternative theory" has fewer connotations than "conspiracy theory," then wouldn't it be prudent to use the term with fewer connotations? I think ireneshusband's assumption is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dscotese (talk • contribs) 23:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose I will say that calling the theories conspiracy theories is legitimate. It is an example of calling a spade a spade, no more, no less. Unless reliable sources can be found that label such theories by clearly more respectable names, keeping the label is appropriate.Ngchen (talk) 03:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but can you point out any possible logic that says that any alternate theory must imply conspiracy? I must be missing something, because there seems to be a huge lapse in critical thinking here. Bulbous (talk) 04:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

What? If we apply the logic the ~~conspiracy~~ alternative theorists use, then any theory which involves more than one person acting in secret is a "conspiracy theory." You can't object to the current name on that rationale, and then push your preferred name on a totally contradictory rationale. Critical thinking requires you also — especially — examine your own preferred ideas, as well as everybody else's. The 9/11 "alternative" theories are classic conspiracism, positing an incredibly powerful group taking profound world-changing action and yet somehow escaping the notice of all but a dedicated group of Internet kooks. When you start unraveling these "theories" you're inevitably led to the point where the theorist tells you that everyone is in on it; the government, the mainstream media, etc. It's classic conspiracism. <eleland/talkedits> 05:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me. You still have an overwhelming logic problem. Who says that any alternative theory of 9/11, even something so small as a rejection of a timeline issue, involves "more than one person working in secret". This is your own WP:OR. Can no one see this? Bulbous (talk) 06:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Because even a disagreement over a timelines requires (1) someone to lie about the timeline, (2) experts to overlook or ignore the lie, (3) journalists and experts to ignore those who bring it up. That's a conspiracy. --Haemo (talk) 06:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

So, in your world, every difference of opinion must necessarily involve a "lie"? That is absolutely and entirely ridiculous! You are logically equating difference of opinion with malfeasance, when it may simply be error or negligence. Mistakes or disagreements do not imply "lies" as you so non-neutrally suggest. This may simply reflect scholastic or personal difference of opinion, incompetence, or negligence. Bulbous (talk) 06:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not a "difference of opinion" when it's a statement of what happened to when and the facts are known. Even if you skip (1) there is still (2) and (3) which are a conspiracy. --Haemo (talk) 06:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

(2) "Ovelook or ignore" and (3) "ignore". Those are the aspects of your argument which break down. There is no necesary implication of malfeasance. 2) and 3) may simply be MISTAKEN. Mistakes on the part of sources in no way implies complicity. Do you not understand that? Bulbous (talk) 07:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not the event in question is a mistake or a lie, the theory still posits a conspiracy of experts and journalists who conceal and suppress the resolution of the mistake, or lie. Complicit or implicit conspiracy is still conspiracy. --Haemo (talk) 07:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The reason that a theory might not be part of the "official" record may simply be difference of expert opinion. There is still no way that every alternative theory of the events of 9/11 equates to conspiracy. It's ludicrous, and you haven't given any rational explanation to justify it. Bulbous (talk) 15:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

eleland's comment above is nothing but sophistry. He says that we cannot object to the title if "conspiracy theory" is a value-neutral term. The whole reason Mak Allen proposed the change was because such a definition would not exclude the mainstream story, yet this story is excluded from the scope of the article. Then he says that the theories described in the article should be labelled "conspiracy theories" because they are kooky and methodoligically flawed. May I refer you to Wikipedia:Naming conflict, which says that article titles should not prejudge the content? I cannot believe that he is not intelligent enough to understand this. ireneshusband (talk) 02:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)
Legitimate differences of opinion and interpretation are already covered in the main articles per WP:NPOV. For example, the question of whether Moussaoui was the "20th hijacker," whether the United 93 passengers fought their way to the cockpit door before the hijackers "pulled it down", whether simple and economical improvements to the WTC towers could have prevented or long delayed their collapse, even whether NORAD and FAA covered their asses by deliberately lying about the timeline of events, are all areas of reasonable, reliable source, disagreement. This "alternative theories" push is an attempt to legitimize and promote theories which go far beyond the facts, and indeed invent new facts freely. The only possible way which "alternative" explanations could differ so widely from the explanations given by governments and media, and yet still be correct, would be if the government and media were deliberately, consciously lying. That's what I mean by "conspiracism." To believe this stuff, you have to throw away enormous volumes of documentation, which you can only do by positing that the documenters are "in on it." <eleland/talkedits> 16:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not derogatory, or misleading; all of the arguments which insist the label is inherently insulting are based on misreadings or personal opinion; not reliable sources. It is the overwhelming term used for these theories in reliable sources — both academic and journalistic. The fact that certain people, who hold certain beliefs which the mainstream media calls "conspiracy theories" do not want to be associated with people who hold truly outrageous beliefs is little more than a political ploy. --Haemo (talk) 06:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
We are not forced to use POV pushing terminology (check the article conspiracy theory to see if it is derogatory) - even when mainstream media do - if more neutral terminology is available. According to WP:NPOV we are also not *allowed* to use such POV pushing terminology (see the quotes in my comment below).--Pokipsy76 (talk) 13:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
It is not POV; it can be used pejoratively, but it is not inherently pejorative — the same term is true of "terrorist" or virtually any term which can be used as a negative. --Haemo (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

According to "20th Century Words", John Ayto, Oxford University Press, p. 15, it has been pejorative since the 1960s.

Wrong....inherently pejorative. Try introducing a friend who harbors a non-mainstream theory about something as a "conspiracy theorist" and see what happens! The terms "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist" are far from neutral.Apostle12 (talk) 18:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

What is it with this "It's what reliable sources call it"? It could not have been made clearer in this debate that this argument has absolutely no legs whatsoever. It is nothing more than a self-serving confabulation. No one has challenged the reasoning behind this rebuttal. Yet the opposers keep coming back with this old canard again and again and again. Even when someone puts out an RfC and editors come from other parts of wikipedia, where you would expect the culture to be at least a little different, many of them trot out exactly the same line without any sign that they have bothered to read the debate they purport to be commenting on. What is even stranger is that a year ago on this page, when there was a different lot of core editors in place, you would still here the same mantra over and over again. Well there's a conspiracy theory for you! Wikipedia being taken over by pod people. Don't we deserve better than this? ireneshusband (talk) 01:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - per Ice Cold Beer. Been argued many times over. The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
The Ice Cold Beer comment do not provide any reason for opposing *to the proposal*: it just provide a reason for opposing *to the RFC*, so your "Oppose" seem to be inappropriate or unjustified.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 14:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Support: citing Conspiracy theory:
The term is also used pejoratively to dismiss claims that are alleged by critics to be misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish, irrational, or otherwise unworthy of serious consideration.

And citing WP:NPOV:

Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality.

And finally a simple observation: a term that is "also used pejoratively" has *obviously* a lower degree of neutrality than a term that is *not* used pejoratively. Try to reject this argument if you can.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 09:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

PS: I prefer 9/11 non-mainstream theories rather than 9/11 alternative theories.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 14:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Except that the "other" term is not used by reliable sources and serves only to try and disassociate the theories mentioned from the criticism they have attracted in the media. That's called undue weight and changes the common name because some people don't like the associations the term uses. It's no different than "psuedoscience" — a term which the ArbCom already endorsed. --Haemo (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

As already made clear above, as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions, "reliable sources" has absolutely no bearing on this. It is simply not a criterion as far as naming of articles go. Yet again, you completely fail to respond to the argument that Wikipedia:Naming conflicts strongly recommends that the title should not prejudge the content, with the clear implication that this overrides strict adherence to the basic principle of Wikipedia:Naming conventions. I have also pointed out that the "undue weight" rule specifically concerns article contents and not titles. Please at least try to pretend that you have been paying attention to what other people have to say. ireneshusband (talk) 00:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It does not prejudge the content. The term has both a pejorative and non-pejorative use, and the use here is the neutral one used by reliable sources. It is the common name, and it is not used in the pejorative sense in the title. --Haemo (talk) 01:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources reliable sources reliable sources you are getting sleepy reliable sources...

The reliable sources argument is bogus and you well know it. There is absolutely nothing in Wikipedia:naming conventions to justify it. Given how emphatically and repeatedl it has been demolished, to resurrect even once more would be utterly shameful. ireneshusband (talk) 02:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

If the term "conspiracy theory" has both pejorative and non-pejorative uses then it is an ambiguous term and falls foul of the guidelines at Wikipedia:Naming conventions. You say that the term is not used in the pejorative sense, but it is not the author who determines the interpretation of the text, but the reader (The Pleasure of the Text). Not only is your assertion nothing more than a personal opinion, but it is clearly nonsensical considering eleland's view on the subject. ireneshusband (talk) 02:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Strongly Support:The theories are all conspiracies, so calling this page a conspiracy theory page is not accurate.--Mak Allen (talk) 11:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Support: I just read the last three RFC's and the reasons used for opposing a change are enough for me to support it. Some common reasons given were "alternative theories implies they might be provable", "the theories are absurd and they deserve the title of conspiracy theories", "Conspiracy theories are.. intellectual toxic waste...so title is appropriate", "Theories that ignore the evidence do not warrant the "alternative" label", "calling them alternative theories would be giving them credibility" and "Reliable sources trump NPOV". Then we have the failed RFC to change the article name to "911 Conspiracy Hoaxes" where some editors supported it which is completely at odds with the reasons the same editors give not to change to "alternative theories". It is abundantly apparent that much opposition for alternative is based solely on the POV reasoning that anything to prevent giving the slightest credibility to conspiracy theories is prefered. Wayne (talk) 12:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Strongly Support:

- Both the official account and other views explaining the events of 9/11 are conspiracy theories, therefore it is inaccurate - The term "conspiracy theory" is pejorative, and therefore not NPOV - The proposed title is clearly more appropriate given the diverse nature of content in the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories article My rationale for supporting this move has been largely expanded on earlier in this thread, so I won't repeat the arguments. If anyone wants further justification from me, pls inquire. Gindo! 21:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: "Conspiracy theories" is the term most often used in reliable sources. Newspapers and other reliable sources are surely aware of the negative connotations attached to the term, which is probably why they use it in the first place. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 21:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Newspapers don't have the Neutral Point of View Policy but we do.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 22:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Adopting a non-standard term for political reasons is in no sense of the word "neutral". --Haemo (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  - Hasn't the "alternative theories" crowd spent a lot of time on various 9/11 pages arguing that we can only use the word "terrorism" when our sources use it? That seems like a little of a double standard to require the exact wording only when it helps your cause. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 23:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this is referring to exactly, but it sounds like it is to do with the content of articles. This discussion is about the title, which should be non-judgemental according to Wikipedia:Naming conflict. ireneshusband (talk) 03:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Forcing use of a "standard" term for political reasons is not neutral either. Wikipedia:Naming conflicts says that titles should not prejudge the content. Anything else is political. It is, to use one o the pieces of wikipedia jargon that many of the opposersseem so fond of, "POV pushing." ireneshusband (talk) 01:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions says absolutely nothing about "reliable sources" being a criterion for naming articles. This has been made absolutely clear in the debate. No one has shown how this reading of Wikipedia:Naming conventions might be in error. You lot will need to change your hymnal. ireneshusband (talk) 01:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Oppose, there's been no new arguments made since all the other attempts at this. The vast majority of sources use the term conspiracy theory, and that is all the reason we'd need to keep it here. The arguments for the move here mostly involve bad analogies (the term alternative in other unrelated contexts or arguing the term conspiracy theorist). The bottom line here is that Wikipedia is not in the business of popularizing or introducing terms...and this move would be doing just that. The vast majority of sources (reliable or not) use the term conspiracy theory. only a tiny minority call it alternative theory.

One more important point about this, there's a lot of talk about the term being pejorative. Given the extremely wide usage of the term, to accept that argument you'd have to also accept that the BBC, New York Times, Reuters (among thousands more all over the world) all consciously and purposely use a term they know is pejorative in their news sections. Plainly that's not something any reliable news organization would ever do. RxS (talk) 23:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think they use it because it is a pejorative term. Haemo made a great point above about how this is a little like use of the term pseudoscience. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 23:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

This issue of the use of the word "pseudoscience" has been brought up a couple of times. Considering how grossly so many editors have been willing misrepresent Wikipedia:Naming conventions in order to push their agenda, I would be extremely surprised if the arbcom decision in question has any pertinence to this discussion whatsoever. If you think it does, then please supply us with a link so that we can refute your arguments more quickly. ireneshusband (talk) 03:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Is Rx Strangelove's suggestion that news organisations would never use a pejorative term merely a personal opinion, or does he have any evidence to back this up? In any case, you don't need to be conscious that you are using a pejorative term to do so. ireneshusband (talk) 03:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Not my suggestion, but basic editorial policy of any real news organization, [18] for example. Are you suggesting that news providers do consciously and purposely use pejorative terminology? If so, then the burden is you to show it since you're the one wanting to make a change. If it's an unconscious usage, you'll have to show that while at the same time providing evidence that your judgment on these matters (in this context) is better than the combined editorial boards of NYT, BBC etc etc. Otherwise we'll continue to use the same terminology as reliable sources and news organizations internationally do. RxS (talk) 03:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose per RxS. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 23:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

strongly support I was wondering when the troops would turn up. One of the main reasons that this proposal has failed in the past has been that whoever was naive enough to propose it has simply had to deal with huge numbers of editors coming from every quarter with nonsensical arguments. It has been weight of numbers, rather than reason, that has won the day. I haven't yet read all the "new" arguments that have suddenly come to light, but the gist of them seems to be "Conspiracy theory is not derogatory or a negaitve judgement because I personally think so." It is absolutely beyond doubt that the current title has no merit according to policy and evidence, and no amount of personal opinion will change that. ireneshusband (talk) 00:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Broad pronouncement that your interpretation is "beyond doubt" are not compelling arguments, and to summarize the above opinions as "because I think so" is misleading and false. --Haemo (talk) 00:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree, your assertion that something is beyond doubt is only that..your assertion. And could you explain the troops comment please? RxS (talk) 00:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

In the past this debate has been decided by force of numbers, not by reason.

I am not the one making "broad pronouncements". Unlike you, I have tried very hard to give chapter and verse when I have refered to wikipedia policy, and I have tried very hard to make my evidence and my reasoning clear, as have other editors advocating change. You make no effort at all to address the substance of many of our arguments. If there was anything wrong with the spec I am sure you would have told us. So come on then! Why doesn't Wikipedia:Naming conventions apply in this case? Why are the precedents set by renaming other articles with "conspiracy theory" in their titles irrelevant? How can a term, the meaning of which is not universally agreed, be an unambiguous descriptor? ireneshusband (talk) 01:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Your arguments have been rebuffed; you just refuse to acknowledge it, and instead repeat them as if repetition ensured their veracity. --Haemo (talk) 01:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Show me where, for instance, my interpretation of Wikipedia:Naming conflicts has been rebuffed. As for repetition: reliable sources reliable sources reliable sources you are getting sleepy reliable sources... ireneshusband (talk) 03:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Support, unequivocal support "9/11 alternative theories" is the only neutral title that has been proposed so far. The terms "conspiracy theories" and "conspiracy theorists" have been pejorative for four decades now, as any linquist will confirm. Don't even know why we are debating it. Apostle12 (talk) 00:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, it's not a matter of whether it is pejorative or not, but a matter of how it is most frequently referred to in the mainstream. How we personally feel is irrelevant. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 01:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Please make at least a little effort to read the comments that have gone before before you post. It's only common courtesy. ireneshusband (talk) 01:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I had. I suppose I should apologize for holding a differing opinion? ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 18:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to reiterate, in case it anyone missed it in the comment soup, the term is pejorative according to "20th Century Words" (1999) John Ayto, Oxford University Press, page 15. ireneshusband (talk) 01:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You repeatedly cite the article conspiracy theory, which states "The term "conspiracy theory" may be a neutral descriptor for any conspiracy claim" and instead focus on the "its current derogatory sense" phrase. Naturally, this article does not use it in the derogatory sense, as you have repeatedly claimed. "Conspiracy theory" has both pejorative and neutral uses; our use here is neutral. --Haemo (talk) 01:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Only sufficient context could make "conspiracy theory" neutral; otherwise, it has distinct pejorative meaning. The context that might ensure neutrality is impossible to provide in a succinct title. Apostle12 (talk) 18:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose "conspiracy theories" is by far the most common name for these theories, best known and used by news sources and reliable sources. [19] --Aude (talk) 00:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

This argument has already been discredited several times over. Why aren't you willing to address the specific arguments of those supporting the change? You are a very experienced editor. I find it strange that you should be so casual about this. ireneshusband (talk) 01:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It has not been discredited; you have merely repeatedly claimed it has been. --Haemo (talk) 01:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

He is chanting the "reliable sources" mantra all over again. Please quote the section of Wikpidia:Naming conventions that says what reliable sources say is a criterion for naming articles. You can't because it doesn't. ireneshusband (talk) 03:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - "Conspiracy theories" is the most common name, by far. Rx StrangeLove said it best, and I feel it can't be quoted enough: "Wikipedia is not in the business of popularizing or introducing terms...and this move would be doing just that. The vast majority of sources (reliable or not) use the term conspiracy theory. Only a tiny minority call it alternative theory." Per naming conventions, there's really no argument. Yes, the "mainstream" view of 9/11 could be considered a conspiracy to some degree, maybe (it's really somewhat debatable), but that's beside the point. Again, Wikipedia does not make up names: This is an important social phenomenon, and we can't simply decide to change its most common name. Okiefromokla ^questions? 02:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Using different wording in the title is not the same thing as "introducing a term"; that's nonsense. "Conspiracy theory" is a term that has acquired a distinct pejorative meaning over the past several decades, and this meaning exceeds the combined meaning of the two words. By contrast, "alternative theory" is a simple combination of two words, each of which have clear meaning; "alternative theory" is not a "term" in its own right. To use these two words in the title is not to "introduce a term."Apostle12 (talk) 02:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Even if I agreed with you, that still doesn't warrant changing the title from the most common name because some feel it's "derogatory". Which, in it of itself, is a moot argument. As pointed out by Peter Grey below and others previously, these theories are not substantiated by reliable sources, which makes them unworthy of such an accommodating title. If they were truly accepted alternate theories, as the word "alternate" suggests, then we should give them equal credence in the main 9/11 article, but we cannot because that article focuses on the facts available and conclusions drawn by experts. Of course, this entire discussion is really moot, as our naming conventions generally dictate that the most common name be the title of the article. Okiefromokla ^questions? 05:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Really? A recent controversy involved an article discussing "The Franklin Coverup," as it is universally known. One group wanted the title to actually be "The Franklin Coverup." An opposing group wanted the title to be "The Franklin Hoax," because they didn't believe there was any "coverup." A second group suggested "The Franklin Incident," which is completely neutral. We achieved consensus by calling it "Franklin child abuse allegations," with redirects from "The Franklin Coverup," so people could actually find it.Apostle12 (talk) 08:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose 'Alternative theory' overtly violates NPOV because it implies equality with conventional theories; 'conspiracy theory' satisfies NPOV because it implies-correctly-onjectures with lesser standards of evidence, logic or agreement with reality. The implication is neutral, not pejorative, because it is accurate. Peter Grey (talk) 05:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

By stating that "alternative theory....implies equality..," then stating that "conspiracy theory" does not imply equality and is therefore correct, you concede our argument that the existing title does not meet NPOV guidelines. NPOV means that the title should allow the evidence to stand on its own, to be accepted or judged by the reader, not identified ahead of time as "conjectur(ing) with lesser standards of evidence, logic or agreement with reality." Your assertion that the existing title is "neutral" because what it implies is "correct" is doublespeak of the worst kind.Apostle12 (talk) 08:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

At least this is giving me a good laugh. Getting rid of the "common name" and "gives credence to" arguements leaves virtually no arguement against changing the name. Neither of those are credible reasons so what do we do when supporting editors give valid reasons for a change while opposing editors have nothing apart from the "I don't like it" arguement. Surely numbers alone can't be a valid RFC in this particular case. Wayne (talk) 09:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

These are explanations of historical events, not political or philisophical viewpoints. With the evidence currently available, some explanations are objectively weaker than others. Neutrality does not mean putting fact and folklore on an equal footing. Furthermore, while an encyclopedia should include valid uncertainties and criticisms, it is not a collection of isolated facts that require the reader to fabricate their own conclusions. Peter Grey (talk) 11:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

"Folklore?" "Isolated facts?" "Political viewpoints?" "Philosophical viewpoints?" Where do any of these appear in the article as written? Your bias is enormous, sir!Apostle12 (talk) 17:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Basically Peter Grey is saying that the title should reflect the fact that conspiracy theories are methodologically flawed. Wikipedia:Naming conflict says that article titles should not prejudge their content. It would be nice if more of the editors who responded to this RfC had actually bothered to read what other people had said before they started typing. ireneshusband (talk) 03:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - from WP:Naming Conventions The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists. Readers coming to wikipedia will be looking for the term that is commonly used.--PTR (talk) 14:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

And they will easily find it with a redirect. In any case, most readers will come to this article from the main 9/11 page through a direct link. Apostle12 (talk) 17:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying that the naming convention should be changed from what the reader will most probably be searching for to something else and you're assuming they will be coming from the 9/11 page instead of searching for this specific page? In that case, you're wanting to not just change the name of the page but to change all instances of "conspiracy theory" to "alternate theory" which is not just a naming convention discussion. --PTR (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conflict says that the title of an article should not prejudge the content. Why are you completely unwilling to address this? ireneshusband (talk) 03:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Neither should the title misrepresent the content. Peter Grey (talk) 03:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not prejudging the content but using the most commonly used term so it is optimized for the readers to find the article they are looking for. We can't know they will be coming here from another article. --PTR (talk) 14:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

no move Per WP:COMMONNAME. The common name for the topic is "conspiracy theories." Secondly, they are not alternate theories; they are not accepted as facts by the mainstream media or scholarship. Rather, they are they are conspiracy theories, and are not generally accepted as factual, legitimite theories as to the actual events of the tragety. Alternative theories would imply more certianty toward the allegation than is warrented. Yahel Guhan 05:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Strong support in favor of renaming. The title is objectively pejorative, as evinced by the fact that many editors who oppose the change have pointed out it accurately describes folklore and urban legend; however, these are not the subject of the article. Moreover it abuses the term 'theory,' by prescribing the colloquial meaning of that word while some of the contents address theories in the scientific sense. The term 'Conspiracy theories' excludes scientific theories, but accurately describes the plot that is the subject of the 9/11 attacks article. However, the term 'Alternative theories' potentially embraces both folkore and science, but like the article excludes the mainstream theory. Hence '9/11 alternative theories' is a more accurate title. Oneismany (talk) 14:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- - alternate name suggestion '9/11 hypotheses' may be a more neutral title if folklore is meant to be excluded or perhaps '9/11 theories' if the Al-Qaeda link is included. The Al-Qaeda link may be given undue weight in the 9/11 attacks article because the sources for it are not reliable. Oneismany (talk) 10:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

strongly support for all the reasons stated above. Pretty soon the titled will have to be '9/11 Conspiracy Theories: Proven.' bov (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

weakly support because the name of the article is not very important. "Conspiracy Theory" does have mostly negative connotations, so using it anywhere in WP where it is not either a direct quote from a cited source or a discussion of the term itself (like "nigger") violates WP:NPOV. Likewise, the theory that 19 members of Al Quaeda perpetrated it is also a conspiracy theory, but it will never be called that because it is the official story.Dscotese (talk) 23:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 2

Support per Pokipsy76's arguments above. While, it would more acceptable in the lead, the use of the term "Conspiracy theory" prejudges the content. Unfortunately, that usage seems to have a large precedent in wikipeidia articles. Despite the precedent, it still seems POV, in my opinion. BigK HeX (talk) 07:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate discussion 2

The open Requested move above is listed at WP:RM as 9/11 conspiracy theories → 9/11 alternative theories. This appears to duplicate this RFC. Surely it is pointless having both discussions in progress at once? Andrewa (talk) 23:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Nah. What would be pointless would be to copy your arguments from one to the other. Each discussion has it's own tributaries and subtopics, and all of it is interesting.Dscotese (talk) 23:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Summarizing

I'll try to summarize some of the relevant arguments and counterarguments about the name issue.

1) "Conspiracy theory" is a derogatory term

We have "conspiracy theory" and "20th Century Words", John Ayto, Oxford University Press, p. 15 supporting this claim.

Objections:

it can both be used as derogatory or neutral descriptor and we are using it as a neutral descriptor
- Reply: It is not possible to specify that the term is being used as a neutral descriptor in the space of a succinct title, and therefore the title will just appear with a derogatory connotation to many people.
  - The term is only given a derogatory connotation when it is used in a particular sense. The citation you link specifically states that. The title of the article does not use it in that sense, hence it is not derogatory. The fact that numerous reliable sources use the term neutrally — indeed, it is the most common term — should bear testament to this.
    - But a lot of people here supporting the name "conspiracy theory" is saying that "alternative theories" would make the content appear more plausible than it should: they are implicitly suggesting that when people read "conspiracy theory" they perceive that the content is likely to be flawed, hence the derogatory connotation seems to exist here.
The term is unflattering, but that is unavoidably required by accuracy and NPOV, since these "theories" are objectively weaker than mainstream accounts.
- Reply:This just confirm what is written in (1). The problem of being a legitimate term *even being derogatory* is discussed in (2). Please don't mix up arguments, this paragraph was intended to unfold the discussion in its main points, let's try to not repeat the identical messy discussion as above... let's try ro reorganize this section into his structure (I'll delete and move comments inside this section for this aim, I suppose I can do this because this is "my" section :) )
"Conspiracy theory" is not inherently derogatory; it is derogatory if it is used to belittle a reasonable hypothesis, not when it is used to characterise a conspiracy theory.
- Reply: who is deciding if the hypothesis is reasonable? Certainly we have not the authority to do that. Moreover if it implies unreasonableness then it is bviously dergatory.

2) Wikipedia policy says that "encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality" and (by 1) "conspiracy theory" does not exibit the highest degree of neutrality moreover Wikipedia:Naming conflicts says that article titles should not prejudge their content.

Objections

There is not another title that is both appropriate for the content and exibiting a "higher degree of neutrality" than "conspiracy theory" because less derogatory titles would make the subject appear more plausible but it is not plausible according to the experts and wikipedia should exibit the POV of such experts
- Reply:
  1. it's not clear which experts and which specific theories we are referring to: in many cases here there are no expert that could have the authority to say what is plausible. The only topic where the expert are really relevant is the controlled demolition hypothesis but as you can see the title here is neutral.
  2. In some cases here there are actually experts that say that some of the claims are plausible (see for example the insider trading issue)

Am I forgetting something? How do you reply to the arguments?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 08:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's try to keep the discussion (somewhat) centralized. The page move is already being discussed in two different places, and we don't need to add a third discussion about the same topic. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 09:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

These discussions are enormous, are a total mess and it is almost impossible to focus the arguments and the counterarguments. Is it such a bad thing to try to summarize and keep things clear?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 09:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Since (1) is flawed, this argument is without merit. 'Conspiracy theory' is already the most objective, neutral, and accurate term. Peter Grey (talk) 00:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

And it's flawed because you say so. Very neutral. Good argument. Can you verify it is flawed with x number of sources? No. Of course not, you'd rather just argue and get the discussion further off point by throwing out the same weak objection again and again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deminizer (talk • contribs) 16:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory is derogatory (John Ayto, in "20th Century Words", John Ayto, Oxford University Press, p. 15). You will either need to provide a reliable source to say that John Ayto's scholarship is faulty, or you will please stop repeating this baseless nonsense about the term being "neutral". ireneshusband (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant. First off, neutrality is defined in the NPOV way, and NPOV, these ARE conspiracy theories by definition. Second, Wikipedia is not politically correct; if something is upsetting to people, tough cookies. Third, we use the most common name for something. 9/11 conspiracy theories is the most common name for it BY FAR. Titanium Dragon (talk) 04:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPOV states that we must choose the most neutral title we can, not the most pupular. Derogatory terms are obviously less neutral then non-derogatory ones.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 09:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Point (1) is not flawed being continuously confirmed by everybody that comes into the discussion and explicitly say that they couldn't accept more neutral decsriptions because they want the content to be characterized as unreasonable.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 09:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

3) Conspiracy theory is ambiguous. The endless debate over whether it simply means a belief in the existence of a conspiracy, or whether it means a theory with particular flaws, demonstrates this. The idea that we can choose from those meanings and predetermine how the reader will interpret the title is absurd. Alternative theories is unambiguous. It is also instantly comprehensible to a lay person.

This demonstrates the high suitability of the term, since both senses apply. Peter Grey (talk) 00:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions says that titles should be unambiguous. This is also a matter of common sense. ireneshusband (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The title is unambigious. 9/11 conspiracy theories without a doubt refers to the contents of this article, and ONLY to the contents of this article. Titanium Dragon (talk) 04:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Not really: according to the title one could expect to find also the "official theory" (conspiracy by AlQaeda) and the "Saddam organized it" theory too (as they are both relevant and enciclopedic theories about conspiracies).--Pokipsy76 (talk) 10:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

4) 9/11 conspiracy theories is a flawed encyclopaedic category. At least one non-mainstream account of 9/11–that Saddam Hussein was involved–is not generally called a conspiracy theory in mainstream usage, even though it has many of the qualities often ascribed to "conspiracy theories". It certainly does not belong in the main 9/11 article. "Alternative theories" would embrace it without any problem.

The attempt to frame Saddam Hussein as an accomplice could legitimately be re-categorized, though it also relies on deeply flawed methodology, and the actual conspiracy behind the hoax is, naturally, a conspiracy. Peter Grey (talk) 00:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

If you have objective evidence that the term "conspiracy theory" is more than rarely used to describe this theory, then you are welcome to bring it forward. ireneshusband (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The link between Saddam and 9/11 is not a "theory." It is a damned lie. The only reason anybody believes it is because the Bush government and the media made it up. It does not belong in an article reporting investigations of collusion or conspiracy in the 9/11 attacks. If was ever anything on God's green Earth that could be objectively be called a lie, this is it. It does not belong in an article on 9/11 theories but it may deserve a mention in an article on 9/11 lies. Oneismany (talk) 08:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I agree entirely with you that the Saddam theory is a lie. However the issue is not whether or not a particular explanation of 9/11 is true, but whether or not it is appropriate for the title of the article to pass judgement on it. ireneshusband (talk) 09:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

5) What "reliable sources" call "them" has absolutely nothing to do with it as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions. This argument has been repeated relentlessly, but it has absolutely no merit. ireneshusband (talk) 06:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Correct, and equally true is that their proponents' distaste for the label is irrelevant. This argument supports taking no action. Peter Grey (talk) 00:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This argument supports no such thing. ireneshusband (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It's as valid as anything that reliable sources (especially the media) refer to these as "conspiracy theories". It's just another idicator that the most used and widely-known term is indeed "conspiracy theories." And a very important indicator. This particular argument should be removed from this list. It's a counter argument to a coutner argument, not a different and new argument all together. Okiefromokla ^questions? 05:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

6) There are precedents for such a move, namely the articles that have been renamed Alternative theories of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 and Alternative theories regarding the CIA leak scandal. ireneshusband (talk) 00:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This argument does not demonstrate any unsuitability in the current title, is consistent with taking no action. Peter Grey (talk) 00:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

However it would have helped your case if you had been able to find anything wrong with such precedents. You have all remained resolutely silent about this. ireneshusband (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

There are precedents for not renaming as well. For instance: The previous 5 or 6 times consensus has been reached to not rename this article (see "This has been dealt with previously" below). This argument should be removed; it's misleading. There have been many, many presedents for both renaming similar articles or not renaming them. This shouldn't even be considered. Okiefromokla ^questions? 05:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I sense here an effort to obfuscate the matter to such an extent that everyone just says "Fuck it!", then logs off in frustration. True?Apostle12 (talk) 11:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Assume good faith, much? --Haemo (talk) 20:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

There's an absolutely massive amount of assuming bad faith and incivility here (troops showing up, pod people, feeling sleepy, need to change your hymnal). I think we're getting to the end of this. RxS (talk) 04:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I think it's fairly obvious we aren't reaching a consensus for this... Okiefromokla ^questions? 04:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course you all acted in good faith because all Wikipedia editors unquestionably act in good faith. However if you and many of the others who have contributed to this debate learned to engage directly with the arguments others have presented and desisted from repeating the same old discredited truism again and again and again, then others would not feel the need to be so abrupt in order to get the discussion back on track. There is a limit to how often I am prepared to repeat "This argument is completely bogus as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions." Endless repetitions of the same bogus argument do indeed make the debate almost impossible to follow. It does look like obfuscation. Everything I have said has been for the single purpose of cutting through the crap. The fact that we have been able to get to the point of summarising our arguments concisely, rather than have them completely disappear in the noise, shows that this has paid off. I suggest you consider your own role in this before you criticise anyone else. ireneshusband (talk) 06:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You know it's easy to say that ("Of course you all acted in good faith..."), but actions speak louder then words and your actions here have been full of bad faith assumptions, incivility and borderline personal attacks. I'd invite anyone reading this to look at ireneshusband's edit summarys on this page, his comments sprinkled throughout the page ((troops showing up, pod people, feeling sleepy, need to change your hymnal and more), his accusation that some editors on this page are bullies and overall argumentative tone. You've only polarized this debate and guaranteed that nothing will come of this...your assertion that the bullies acting on this page are opposed to the name change is unsupported by any facts, and I would argue that the opposite is true. There's been a lot of stomping of feet and pounding of fists in favor of the move.

As far as your naming convention assertion, let's look at the Wikipedia:Naming conventions second sentence.

Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

There's no question (none at all) that conspiracy theory is what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize. The only thing you grasp onto is that it's pejorative. You haven't shown it is, you just claim that it is. On the other hand, I've shown that reliable sources and major (and minor) news organizations internationally all use the term and that they do not use pejorative terms in their coverage as their stated and official policy. Because of the widespread usage of the term, and the organizations that use it, we're on pretty solid ground here. Is there a tiny minority that consider it pejorative? Sure, there's also a tiny minority that claim the Earth is flat. Neither they nor you get to unilaterally pronounce assertions true and affect policy by making them.

I don't mind debating things, even when it becomes a little heated, but I think you've crossed a line here...I object to being called a bully, or a pod person, and I'm sure others do as well. I also suspect that it makes us less willing to engage in any real debate with you. But we have, and your behavior hasn't changed so as I said, I expect we're reaching the end of this. RxS (talk) 17:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Rx Strangelove has yet again refused to acknowledge what it says in Wikipedia:Naming conflict. He also claims yet again that we have not provided any proof that "conspiracy theory" is pejorative even though it could not have been made clearer that we have provided a source from an unquestionably reliable authority on the use of language that says that is. ireneshusband (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I refuse to acknowledge that Wikipedia:Naming conflict demands a change here, and I continue to claim that you have not provided any proof that "conspiracy theory" is pejorative in this context. On the other hand, you refuse to answer for your behavior here, I bet if someone called you a pod person you'd actually start frothing at the mouth and stomp your feet even harder! But it's ok when it directed this way I guess huh? lol. RxS (talk) 04:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said before. Wikipedia:Naming conventions can not be used as a reason for an oppose vote. It is a guideline not a rule and there are many exceptions in WP with most of these, ironically, being at the request of the similar group of editors who support the opposite here. The most obvious RFC example is where the Franklin case title was not allowed to have the word "coverup" or "scandal" in it and was eventually called by a name that gets exactly 5 hits on google with one of those being the WP article itself, one a link to the WP article, one being my own talk page and one being a critique of the WP article for censoring the topic.
The title giving credence to the theories is also not a valid reason as alternative theories or hypothesis by definition do not have a requirement of credibility so the term cannot be claimed to imply it does. Def:"is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality". Both of these reasons fall in the "I don't like it" or in other words "POV" category which IS against WP policy. A valid oppose vote must have other reasons or it can not in good faith be counted. Unfortunately this will require editors to answer the questions they have been avoiding but that's just too bad. Wayne (talk) 16:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

At no point have you made a compelling argument for why we should disregard guidelines in this spot, and pointing to another article has no relevance to the discussion whatsoever. The opposes above are not based in the argument that the name adds credibility — rather, that it disassociates the theories listed from the criticism they have attracted in the media and academia by deliberately obscuring the title by selecting a name which is uncommon and which most members of the public would not recognize. --Haemo (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

First address what it says in Wikipedia:Naming conflict about titles not prejudging the content of articles, then please feel free to criticise others as much as you like for ignoring guidelines and policies. ireneshusband (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I have, repeatedly; the response to which has been a deafening "Nuh uh". --Haemo (talk) 21:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

John Ayto in 20th Century Words states that the phrase is derogatory. Against that we have your personal opinion, and nothing more, that it isn't. Even more laughably, we have your personal assurance that the phrase will be used in its "neutral sense", even though so many editors have made it clear that they are determined to keep the title as it is in order to prove that what it refers to is worthless garbage. So no, you haven't addressed Wikipedia:Naming conflict at all.

The fact that it ever came to the point of having to drag out a quote from a scholar to prove something that is so obvious—as Wayne said, you only have to look at some of the comments that have appeared on this talk page to see proof of it—is utterly lamentable. Wikipedia:Common sense says that if something is common sense, it is probably right. The kind of legalistic nitpicking that we have seen in this discussion, the kind that has blighted this article for as long as I can remember, is totally contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. ireneshusband (talk) 00:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You repeatedly state this as if it's true — but it's not. You're misrepresenting the source by selectively quoting only half. The source in question specifically says that it has both a neutral, and a pejorative sense. The title does not use it in the pejorative sense, just as the innumerable reliable sources use it. Nearly any word which has negative connotations to some individuals has a pejorative sense; that does not make every use of it pejorative, as you have repeatedly insisted. I also definitely appreciate the renewed personal attacks; both here and on the mediation case. --Haemo (talk) 01:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

conspiracy theory paraphrases John Ayto thus: "Originally it was a neutral term; during the political upheaval of the 1960s the term acquired its current derogatory sense." In other words the term used to be used in a neutral sense, but now it is derogatory. Your assertion that "innumerable reliable sources" use the phrase in a neutral sense is nothing more than an unsubstantiated personal opinion. In any case, as I have had to repeat umpteen times, "reliable sources" has absolutely nothing to do with the naming of articles (Wikipedia:Naming conventions), at least as far as frequency of usage goes (having a reliable source state that a term is derogatory is a different matter of course). Do you dispute that? The rest of what you say is nothing more than personal opinion. ireneshusband (talk) 01:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It acquired the derogatory sense; that is, there is a sense of the word which is derogatory. The article does not use it in a derogatory sense. To quote the article you repeatedly selectively quote — "The term "conspiracy theory" may be a neutral descriptor for any conspiracy claim". George Johnson's Architects of Fear: Conspiracy Theories and Paranoia in American Politics specifically explains that it has both a pejorative, and a non-pejorative use. You don't seem to recognize this fact, and instead have fixated on the fact that it has a pejorative use. The "innumerable reliable sources" comment is made because they use it neutrally which is why it is the most common identifier from their types of theories; i.e. the most common use of the phrase is the neutral one. This is not my "personal opinion" — this is reading the sources completely; something which you have not done here. --Haemo (talk) 03:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This entire discussion is quickly becoming lame. At any rate, here's a point that I don't think has yet been brought up. While it is true that all the theories regarding 9/11 involve a conspiracy, the popular usage of the term "conspiracy theory" refers to a conspiracy that involves, in part, the United States government. The mainstream account refers to a conspiracy by terrorist groups, while the so-called "alternative theories" refer to conspiracies by the US government. I think this is an important distinction. When it comes to popular usage, the mainstream account of an event doesn't count as a conspiracy theory. --clpo13_(talk) 20:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

If we are to take this as our working definition, then those theories that include Israel, but exclude the U.S. government are to be excluded. If we wanted an article to concern only allegations of US government complicity or malfeasance, then the article title should explicitly state that. Otherwise it would be confusing. ireneshusband (talk) 01:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I probably should have phrased that to include any government. It's not a perfect definition, that's for sure. --clpo13_(talk) 06:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Once again, this comes down to recognizability, which was even brought up by Haemo and not addressed at all. --clpo13_(talk) 20:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

While recognisability is certainly not unimportant, the key issue is whether the term used is easy for a lay person to understand. ireneshusband (talk) 20:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Both seem equally understandable. I don't see how that's much of an issue. --clpo13_(talk) 21:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. ireneshusband (talk) 01:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I have filed a request for help from the mediation cabal. This won't go away. New editors will come, they will see what we've seen before them and they will then go through the same ordeal that we have been through. We need to get this sorted out properly do we not? ireneshusband (talk) 20:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I've declined to participate. It's time to stop trying to circumvent consensus. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

For the benefit of us who may have joined this dicussion on the late side, can you link to where consensus was reached? Bulbous (talk) 03:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Look above. Consensus isn't only about numbers, it is also about argument quality. I have yet to see a good argument for why the page should be moved. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, Ice Cold Beer, I have yet to see a good argument for why the page should not be moved. The quality of the arguments against moving the article to "9/11 Alternative Theories" is resoundingly poor. Apostle12 (talk) 05:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

And you are absolutely entitled to your opinion. There are of course, many others that don't share it. And I'm sure you understand that you are not the sole arbitrator of what constitutes a poor argument. Nor am I. RxS (talk) 05:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh, I see. That's exactly the kind of BS zealotry that keep this article so-titled in the first place: "It doesn't matter how many of you agree - you're all wrong". Mediation wouldn't help bring such a mind to reason anyway. Bulbous (talk) 04:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Can we please try to stay civil and assume good faith here? // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 04:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

BS zealotry?? The irony that statement is present in quantities large enough to be detected from space. In any case, throughout this discussion you guys have thrown any behavioral guidelines right out the window. Apparently WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF doesn't apply to the small group of editors in favor of the change. RxS (talk) 05:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I assumed good faith until the above poster implied that all opinions other than his own, no matter how widely held, were of poor quality. That's zealotry at its worst. Bulbous (talk) 06:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

And thus the irony. RxS (talk) 06:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Your arguments aren't bad because I disagree with them; they are bad because they are bad. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

And yet, somehow, the idea that any explanation of events other than the mainstream automatically involve vast conspiracies, collusions, lies and intrigue makes sense to you? Why not even attempt to explain it, then? Bulbous (talk) 06:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

When did I ever say that? Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This has been dealt with previously

This argument was settled many, many times. It isn't productive. This article is correctly named. It is the most common name for it; these are by definition conspiracy theories; the article's title is completely unambigious; and perhaps most importantly Wikipedia is not censored. They are not "alternative theories", they are undoubtedly conspiracty theories, and the attempt to get conspiracy theory out of the name is POV-pushing. Every single one of your arguments has been answered in the past, and we don't need to go into this again. Give up. You've lost. You will never win. We do not bend to the scientologists, we do not bend to the Christians, we do not bend to the Communists, we do not bend to the afrocentrists, we do not bend to the Nazis, and we do not bend to you. Many people want their group or ideas to be presented favorably by Wikipedia, but that is not what Wikipedia is. We are about what is, what is said, what is thought, and what is done. We are not about promoting the viewpoint of any individual or group, or even any idea other than knowledge is free and accessible, and that a group of diverse editors CAN write a good encyclopedia. If you aren't interested in writing a good encyclopedia, there are other wiki projects that you can be involved in. But Wikipedia is about NPOV. Titanium Dragon (talk) 04:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Nazis? I invoke Godwin's Law - i.e. what gets said when one has no useful points to make. 06:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It was being used as an example. Also, Godwin's Law says nothing about usefulness of arguments - all it says is that as threads get longer the likelihood of Nazis or Hitler being mentioned approach one. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. The conspiracy theories article is a travesty. It has nothing to do with cabal or conspiracy (civil) or conspiracy (crime) or conspiracy (political) (these subjects are intentionally left out of the article), nor is there any article I am aware of on Wikipedia that takes as its subject substantiated allegations of conspiracy, of which history has many examples. The subject of conspiracy theories is the concept of conspiracism and that is no surprise as both titles redirect to the same page and they were deliberately merged. But conspiracism is a theory of conspiracy theories which again equates conspiracy theories with folklore or urban legend, which again is pejorative and derogatory toward anyone with a serious conspiracy claim. Here you reveal your bias by associating 9/11 conspiracy theories with Nazis and Scientologists and afrocentrists. Imagine if the nigger article was not about the racist slur but about black people and there was no article about black people. And if a title using the word 'nigger' was contested you responded, but these people fit the definition of niggers! Circular encyclopedia articles do not make a good encyclopedia. Oneismany (talk) 08:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories are urban folklore; the only people who claim otherwise are the proponents thereof, who are as blind to reality as many religious fanatics and various other groups. The reason the articles are the same is not a giant conspiracy but because that is reality. That is what people call conspiracy theories. These are called conspiracy theories for the same reason that the virginia tech massacre is called such. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Dreyfus Affair = NOT urban folklore. Likewise many others. What are you talking about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dscotese (talk • contribs) 00:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

A brief history of issues regarding the term conspiracy theory as it relates to this page:

[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36] December 2006 consensus. And, brought up by the exact same person with the exact same arguments which were refuted exactly the same.
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40] August 2007 attempt to move the article, failed AGAIN.
[41]
[42]
[43] December 2007 attempt to change the name of the article.

This shows a clear history of bringing this up over and over again by the same group of people. And over and over again it gets rejected. Knock it off. This is clearly an attempt to get your way by annoying the other editors until we go away. Titanium Dragon (talk) 04:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and add one.[44] This one was less than two months ago. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You can't simply assert that it is settled as a means of dismissing concerns that keep coming up over and over again. I am NEW to this discussion, certainly not part of "the same group of people." Obviously there is something WRONG with the existing title, or the issue would not keep coming up.

I just read two of the example discussions you provided. They do not deal with the issue in the same depth as this discussion, though your dismissive attitude IS a constant. You want to have your cake and eat it too (if that is not too cliched)--by using "conspiracy theories" you want the title to establish from the outset that any alternative theory is inferior to the mainstream theory, AND you also want to claim that "conspiracy theories" is not pejorative; these two approaches are logically inconsistent. Most especially you want to ignore experts who insist "conspiracy theories" IS a pejorative term, though you provide no countervailing argument supported by equally authorative, much less superior, experts. You rely exclusively on your own opinion, then you assert you have proved your case.

Plainly you have NOT proved your case, and the matter will not be settled until the title is NPOV, consistent with Wikipedia standards. The title "9/11 Alternative Theories" is plainly NPOV, and it will satisfy everyone--except those who wish the title to be biased. Apostle12 (talk) 05:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The repeated claim that "The article does not use it in a derogatory sense" is refuted by the very statements used in past RFC's to oppose changing the title. The most common reason for no change is that the title would no longer be derogatory!!! (ie:a change would give credence, the theories are absurd etc etc) Those supporting a move feel it is derogatory and those opposing, while (if you are honest) agreeing it is derogatory, claim others not involved in editing who search for the topic wont think it is, so that makes the title NOT derogatory. Does this arguement not seem absurd? Wayne (talk) 06:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Apostle12, the consensus has been the opposite, repeatedly, and it is supported by the Wikipedia naming policy. People bringing it up every two months is not constructive, especially when they bring no new arguments to the table. Alternative theories is POV-pushing because the goal is to obsfucate what they are - they are conspiracy theories by definition.

No new arguments have been brought up this time, and it has been less than -two months- since the last time it was brought up. Once every six months or a year might be okay, assuming you brought new arguments to the table, but this is at a minimum the third time in the last six months this has been brought up.

All you're doing is wasting our time. In six months, if you still feel you have a strong argument, come back and make your case. But all you're doing right now is disrupting the editing of the article. You aren't going to get a different consensus from what we got two months ago, period. You probably never will, but I'm not going to say you should never bring it up again.

But the article is correctly named and this has been the consensus repeatedly, and was the consensus at the end of december. At this point, all you're doing is disrupting Wikipedia to try to make a point. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

When has the argument that "9/11 conspiracy theories" is not a natural encyclopaedic category been presented before? If it has, I am certainly not aware of it and therefore cannot be accused of trying to use it to disrupt wikipedia. I would not be surprised if other key arguments were also new.

There has certainly been significant new evidence presented. Is that not significant?

The proposal for change this time came from a relatively new editor. When I brought this up at the end of 2006, I too was a very inexperienced editor. New editors will keep coming over and over again, will see the same thing we saw and will try to do something about it. It is certainly not the same group of people every time.

Consensus has absolutely no merit in terms of wikipedia policy if it violates wikipedia policy. It has no moral authority if it goes against reason. There was once a case in England in which members of a jury used a ouija board to decide on the verdict. Because of the principle that jury deliberations should be secret, the judge was powerless to say that this was wrong. It was only the fact that the seance had been held outside of the jury room that gave the appeal court the opportunity to declare a mistrial. Sticking a bunch of people together in a room does not necessarily produce sound deliberation or wise judgement, as the flawed reasoning that Apostle11 has pointed to above clearly demonstrates. ireneshusband (talk) 09:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion moved outside of the scheme

The term is unflattering, but that is unavoidably required by accuracy and NPOV, since these "theories" are objectively weaker than mainstream accounts. Peter Grey (talk) 00:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

"Objectively weaker"??? Can you back up that claim with reason, or do you only have "reliable sources" for it? Dscotese (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conflicts says that article titles should not prejudge their content.
John Ayto, in "20th Century Words", John Ayto, Oxford University Press, p. 15, says that the term is derogatory.
Why do you keep coming back again and again and again with the same discredited assertions no matter how many times it is made clear, in no uncertain terms, that they are completely false? ireneshusband (talk) 00:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- It is not a matter of "pre-judgement" by the editors. That's what the reliable sources are for. "Conspiracy theory" is not inherently derogatory; it is derogatory if it is used to belittle a reasonable hypothesis, not when it is used to characterise a conspiracy theory. You have not identified the assertions which you object to, much less responded to them. Peter Grey (talk) 02:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It is attempting to automatically equate "reasonable hypothesis" with "conspiracy theories", even though no such correlation may be drawn. It is a weak attempt by critical-thinking impaired editors to discredit all but the mainstream theory. Bulbous (talk) 03:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of its status as derogatory, this is entirely irrelevant; it is the most commonly used and well-known term to describe these theories; additionally, they are, objectively, conspiracy theories, falling under the definition thereof. Thus, the title is both accurate and the most commonly used name for them, so it is the correct title for the article. We call the Holocaust such, rather than the Final Solution or the Solution to the Jewish Problem, despite Nazis finding the term to be condemning (and many of them claiming it never happened) because it is the common name for it and Wikipedia is not politically correct. Titanium Dragon (talk) 04:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

That whole argument has been skipped as well. There is absolutely no stretch of logic than can equate an alternative theory to a conspiracy theory. Perhaps I believe that Event 105A happened at 9:35 AM instead of 9:37 AM. How does that possibly mean that I believe in some kind of obfuscation, denial, cover-up or conspiracy? To suggest that I do is completely illogical. The fact that it *is* derogatory is an attempt to turn away logical challenges such as this by automatically discrediting the challenger. Bulbous (talk) 04:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

That would be a fair argument... assuming such was present here. But it isn't, and really, it shouldn't be because it is rather different in nature. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Alternative theories are not automatically conspiracy theories

This should be the heart of the discussion, as there has been no defence for their equivalence. The two terms are not equal, not synonymous, and one does not automatically imply the other. It takes a special kind of megalomaniac to suggest that there can be only two viewpoints on any given debate:

1) The commonly held (mainstream) theory.
2) Other (conspiracy) theories which necessarily involve US Goverment interference.

How is this argument anything but laughable? Why do we even entertain it as far as 9/11 is concerned but not for any other subject? If we did, we'd have theories like:

Mainstream: The Loch Ness monster does not exist.
Conspiracy: The Loch Ness monster does exist, but has been captured and trained as a Navy Seal and used to patrol Lake Superior.

Mainstream: Global warming is caused by pollution and other man-made influence.
Conspiracy: Global warming is part of a natural cycle, caused by the United States to reduce dependence on Middle Eastern oil supplies.

Mainstream: Pluto is not a planet.
Conspiracy: Pluto is a planet, but there is a detention centre for Al-Qaeada there, and the US wants to draw attention away from it.

The point that needs to be driven home is that alternate theories on any subject can exist outside of a conspiracy. The simple attempt to say that this is NOT the case as far as 9/11 (and only 9/11) is concerned is only possible with bad faith. Bulbous (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Alternative theories are already covered in the main articles. For instance, there are differing theories on the cause of the towers' collapse due to impact damage and fire. Did the joints that connected the floors to the walls fail, or did the walls fail due to being pulled inwards by the weight of the floors? Those are "alternative theories." They do not necessarily involve a conspiracy. The theories of the 9/11 truth movement, and all of the "non-mainstream" theories documented in this article, are conspiracy theories; they are treated as such by all reliable sources, so Wikipedia will also treat them as such, and this incessant lobbying serves no purpose. <eleland/talkedits> 14:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

"Incessant lobbying?" "....Wikipedia will also treat them as such."

We are discussing a proposal, not "incessantly lobbying."

Please do not pretend to speak for Wikipedia. WE are Wikipedia.

Assuming an authoratative tone does not add strength to your argument.

Apostle12 (talk) 17:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

A more important point might be "are any of the theories discussed in this article called anything but "conspiracy theories" by reliable sources?" Indeed, are any of the them not a conspiracy — either to do something, suppress something, etc. The argument is not that "alternative theories do not exist" but that the theories discussed in this context are, indeed, conspiracy theories, or are discussed on other, more appropriate pages. In addition, the very framing of this question is false; not all 9/11 conspiracy theories involve the US government at all. Many theories involve simply the mainstream media conspiring to suppress valid facts which disagree with the mainstream consensus. It doesn't involve the government at all, yet is no less of a conspiracy theory. The "ridiculous" dicotomy that the original post draws is ridiculous chiefly because they have constructed it to be easy to ridicule — not because it is an actual argument being made. --Haemo (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is going nowhere. Both sides are being forced to regergitate the same arguments to no avail. The fact is, there has been no consensus again for this rename, with a majority actually opposing it. We need to close this discussion and let consensus speak for itself. Okiefromokla ^questions? 21:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Alternative theories is a potential article, but it's not this article. This article would have to be ~~loony~~ 9/11 non-mainstream theories. It's an NPOV title, but it's not the correct title for this article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

ArthurRubin - This proposal may be some common ground between the two differing opinions on the matter. Thanks for proposing. Gindo 00:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gindo (talk • contribs)

Not really. 2,240 google results (as compared to well over 300,000 for "Conspiracy theories" and a third that for "alternative theories". Additionally, again, it is misleading and more vague than "conspiracy theories". Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Just take a look at "WP:NAME:Use common names of persons and things" - "conspiracy theories" is obviously more common and therefore, according to the wikipedia naming conventions, that should be the title of the article. Q.E.D. 71.204.49.76 (talk) 06:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This argument has been dealt with how many times. Please at least try to respond to the specific arguments presented by your opponents, including the ones that say that this interpretation of policy is selective and mistaken.

Titanium Dragon's view flies in the face of evidence, such as the conflicting definitions of the term "conspiracy theory" in authoritative books (Aito's interpretation vs. the dry definition in popular dictionaries), that the term conspiracy theory is highly ambiguous. No one has refuted this argument beyond bare statements of personal opinion. ireneshusband (talk) 07:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

In reply to Haemo and eleland. Not all alternative theories are covered in the main article. Foreknowledge theories are not all conspiracy theories so by your definition they should be in September 11, 2001 attacks yet they are here. There are also the disputes over the times people did things that are not conspiracy theories although they affected the events. The section on the Presidents behaviour is not a conspiracy theory. The section on Claims relating to the hijackers is not a conspiracy theory. The section on the Bin Laden tapes is not a conspiracy theory. Just give me a minute and I'll move those sections to the attacks page for you. Wayne (talk) 06:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

To use a couple of hypothetical examples of non-conspiracy alternative theories, if someone produced a pseudoscientific explanation for why aircraft impact could have brought down the Twin Towers—that the impacts set off a nuclear reaction, say—or if someone produced an explanation for the failure to intercept the airliners that alleged outlandish incompetence—all the NORAD brass were still bopping away at an all-night party and completely off their faces on crystal meth and mescaline—such explanations certainly would not belong in the main 9/11 article. Neither would they belong in "9/11 conspiracy theories". They would then require articles of their own, which would be rather odd. On the other hand they would fit perfectly under the rubric "9/11 alternative theories". Unlike "9/11 alternative theories", "9/11 conspiracy theories" just is not a natural encyclopaedic category, even before you take into account how poorly defined and contentious the term "conspiracy theory" is. ireneshusband (talk) 08:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The argument surfaces again and again that "they" should be called conspiracy theories because that is what "they" are. Considering that the term itself is so poorly and ambiguously defined, this is no more than a tautology. ireneshusband (talk) 08:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Notable uses of "alternative theories:
- State department uses "alternative theories" as the phrase of choice for a report on 9/11.[45]
- CNN poll uses phrase "alternative theories" in poll.[46] This is notable because it is customary for pollsters to try to use neutral language in their questions. Obviously this was not a scientific poll by any means. However it is still striking that this particular choice of phrase was used. ireneshusband (talk) 08:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

No, the State Dept did not use "Alternative theories." The linked news report used "alternative theories" in scare quotes - State used "conspiracy theories." You don't even read your own sources — pathetic. "The Top Sept. 11 Conspiracy Theories"

Down at the bottom of the CNN poll you describe is a "related article" titled "9/11 conspiracy theorists energized." Note that articles are written by journalists and approved by editors, while god knows who writes those silly web-polls.

Google has archived 694 CNN pages containing "9-11" and "conspiracy-theories" and 9 containing "9-11" and "alternative-theories." Striking indeed. <eleland/talkedits> 12:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually we were both partially mistaken. The quotes were not "scare quotes". They were there to indicate both that the phrase was being quoted and that the choice of phrase was self-conscious and deliberate. Because of the great emphasis the article placed on the choice of words, I assumed that the quotes were from the report itself, whereas they were in fact from government officials talking about the report. The url for the report was on page 2 of the article and not linkified, which is why I missed it.

The "fact sheet" itself is clearly designed to push a particular point of view very strongly. This is evident not just from its use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" but also from its repeated use of the pejorative "conspiracy theorist" when it could have simply used the passive voice. In other words, the phrase was being deliberately used for its propaganda value.

So why did the State Department officials choose to use "alternative theories" when talking about the fact sheet? It seems to me that the only possible reason is because they wanted to be appear detached and objective. Perhaps they thought that if they used the phrase "conspiracy theory" in the press conference they might sound like they were ranting; in other words they might have been trying to present themselves as sober and rational in order to distance themselves from the "conspiracy theorists" they were ridiculing in the fact sheet itself. What we can be pretty certain about is that the State Department would not have used the phrase if it thought it would give "undue weight" or undue respectability to the theories the fact sheet was addressing. What we can also be certain of is that the State Department would not have chosen to use the phrase if it thought people might have trouble understanding what it meant.

I have already explained why I believe the wording of the poll question is noteworthy, but I shall try to rephrase it: Of course little web polls like that are silly, but that's not the point. The question is: Why did whoever drew up the poll question select the word alternative over the word conspiracy, which is CNN's favoured term? It seems to me pretty obvious that the only reason that makes sense would be to give this toy poll an aura of neutrality, just like a real poll. ireneshusband (talk) 11:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Ireneshusband left a note on my talk page. WP:COMMONNAME says to use the most common name that people coming to Wikipedia would use. To put the terms "9/11 conspiracy theories" in perspective compared with "9/11 alternative theories", take a look at Google Trends for these terms: [47] (people searching for "9/11 alternative theories" is so tiny that you can't really see it on the graph. Though look at the bar graph showing regions, cities, and languages. "9/11 alternative theories" is a tiny blip on these graphs, but you can see it compared to "9/11 conspiracy theories". Also, here's the results including "9/11 conspiracy" [48]. This is very telling that 9/11 conspiracy theories is by far the most commonly used and known term by the broader public. What news sources use also carries weight in deciding what to name this page. There is absolutely no merit in the proposal to rename this page, and I suggest it's time to close the discussion. --Aude (talk) 13:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I got the same (or similar) message. I found it insulting and vitriolic...some editors seem to think stridently and repeated stating their opinion as fact will convince anyone of anything. It reminds me of a scene from The Good Life, Tom and Jerry are arguing about something and Jerry says "what makes you think you're so smart?" Tom shoots back "Standing next to you" Jerry starts smiling and nodding....he says you know I'm right don't you? Tom's straightens up and asks why? Why do you think that? Jerry says because you always resort to abuse when you lose an argument. To call anything I've done here (or anything I've done on Wikipedia since early 2005) flagrant and reckless is abuse, insulting and hardly worthy of a response. If ireneshusband really believes that then he should take this to Arbcom. Otherwise, I agree with Aude that it's time to move on. RxS (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, she put similar messages on literally every editor's talkpage who has disagreed with her; it's not a productive way to carry on this discussion. --Haemo (talk)

I got one too. I also found it rather counter-productive. It was a nice little Valentine's Day present, I guess. Okiefromokla ^questions? 04:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Didn't know that Google page existed. Very interesting. It shows that almost no one looks for 911 conspiracy theories at all, not many more look for the 911 attacks either, these are both outnumbered by far by plain old 911 conspiracy and of course the overwhelming majority look for 911. Are you suggesting we use the most popular name and just call the page 911? Or the most commonly used term known by the broader public that has the word conspiracy in it and drop the word "theories" from the end? Or.... do we only use the most popular one that you like? Wayne (talk) 16:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Just used that tree thing on another page that went through renaming. Google showed the original name as a majority term by far while the title it was changed to came up "do not have enough search volume to show graphs". The name was changed because western editors didn't like what the rest of the world called it. There was no consensus for a change but it was moved anyway. I guess that negates your "must be called by the most popular search term" arguement. Wayne (talk) 16:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem with labelling the page "9/11 conspiracy" is that it is too vague - the actual conspiracy by Al Quaeda to execute the attack, for instance, would fall under that monicker but is completely different in nature than what is on this page. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, let's use some common sense here. I don't think you could reasonably assume anybody was talking about the official 9/11 description / timeline when they say the phrase "9/11 conspiracy theories." It's common, and it's descriptive enough to encompass the notions contained on this page. Naming it "alternative theories" would be changing it to a less commonly used term, and separating each theory into its own article wouldn't be practical. 71.204.49.76 (talk) 10:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

This continued argument that articles should be titled according to their common names does not hold any water. Check for yourself - think of a slang term or a nickname and search on it. Most of the time, you will be redirected to a disambig page or else the article for which you are seeking with its proper scholarly title. For example Car. Conspiracy Theories should be made to redirect to Alternative Theories, which is what the article should be properly titled. Bulbous (talk) 15:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

My point was not that "9/11 conspiracy theories" was too vague, but the proposed title "9/11 conspiracy" (no theories) was. Sorry for the confusion.

And 9/11 conspiracy theories is not a "slang term" for it; it is the NAME for this grouping. There is no other primary name for it at all. Alternative theories would be the "slang term" here, though I think more properly it is a euphanism at best and political correctness at worst. Wikipedia allows neither. Titanium Dragon (talk) 12:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Who are our readers?

Somebody in the above discussion that most readers to this article come from the link in the main 9/11 attacks article. Two years ago I came directly to this article. Is there any tracking software for this type of thing as is common on many websites?. It would make it easier to serve the readers if we knew who we are writing for Edkollin (talk) 04:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note that if you were to type in "9/11 Conspiracy Theories" a direct link would take you to "9/11 Alternative Theories." The main 9/ll article would have a link called "9/11 Alternative Theories" with a summary of the "9/11 Alternative Theories" article. No one would fail to find the "9/11 Alternative Theories" article; the only difference is that the title would not bias readers to think that the various alternative theories are "urban legends" or "folklore" or "fringe ideas conceived by conspiracy cranks." The alternative theories would have to stand, or fall, on their own merits. In other words, the title would be NPOV. Thanks. Apostle12 (talk) 06:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The title doesn't bias readers against the content of the article. It is informative of what the article contains. It contains conspiracy theories regarding 9/11. That is EXACLTY what is in the article. We are not politically correct. We do not obfuscate, use weasel words, or censor ourselves. They are known as 9/11 conspiracy theories, they are exactly that, and there are no theories in here which are not conspiracy theories. Thus naming it anything else would be less precise and less informative to the reader. 9/11 alternative theories redirects here anyway, but according to google it is at best a third as common, and many of the things which are listed under "alternative theories" hits state "conspiracy theories". Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Please address the points already presented about article titles needing to be neutral, about conspiracy theory being poorly and ambiguously defined, about article titles needing to be unambiguous, about an editor's mere personal assurance that a phrase is not loaded being completely worthless. Repeating the same stuff too many times without addressing points raised by other editors is likely to lead to frayed tempers and loss of trust between editors. There is a Wikipedia guideline about this somewhere. ireneshusband (talk) 09:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

These "points" have been addressed, quite thoroughly. At this stage one must assume you are not raising the issue in good faith or that you not sufficiently informed about the topic to make constructive contributions to this article. Peter Grey (talk) 11:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

There is the paragraph "Summarizing" above where we can read a synthesis of all this arguments and counterarguments. Looking at it it doesn't seem thare that these points have been addressed so thoroughly.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I am being criticised for not assuming others' good faith by people who themselves state that I am not acting in good faith.

You say "these points have already been addressed". As far as I can see little has been done to address any of these points beyond bare statements of personal opinion. If I have missed anything then please point it out because it is pretty hard to see amongst all the noise.

As for repetition, every time a misleading or nonsensical statement is repeated, it is only proper that it be refuted. I would very much like to have had a discussion that was concise and to the point. However when it comes to this issue that is entirely impossible. This is not my doing. After all, I have only taken part in this debate twice, yet those discussions held in my absence were probably little different. Also, if you look at the archive for the discussion at the end of 2006, it is pretty clear that I was hardly the one doing most of the talking. Titanium Dragon should know because he was there. If you and your friends don't like repetition then why don't you set a better example before you criticise others? ireneshusband (talk) 23:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

To say that the content is sonspiracy theories and therefore the title must be conspiracy theories is not a valid argument. If there is a more neutral description of the content of the artcle or if there is another neutral way to present the content it must be preferred per WP:NPOV. Your exact argument could be also used in this way:

The article black people can legitimately have the title nigger: doesn't bias readers against the content of the article. It is informative of what the article contains. It contains informations about niggers. That is EXACLTY what is in the article. We are not politically correct. We do not obfuscate, use weasel words, or censor ourselves.

that shows clearly that your argument has some problems.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 14:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Specious. Reliable sources wouldn't be found to support your argument. It fails the "common use" test. This is on par with the Nazi argument and Godwin's Law above. --PTR (talk) 14:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources are not part of this argument so they are irrelevant in this context. Please don't mix up different arguments.
Obviously even if we find a lot of racist reliable sources we wouldn't be allowed to assume their POV in wikipedia.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 15:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. We would need to use mainstream reliable sources and not assume anyone's POV. The racist sources would not be of the quality of the mainstream sources which is one of the specifics in WP:Naming Conflicts. Also, as I mentioned above, the renaming would not pass the common use test. --PTR (talk) 16:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

If people writing in the mainstream sources generally dislike a particular theory for any reason (for example because it would be not nice to think too bad things about the president or the government) we are not allowed to assume that POV expressing dislike by the same choice of words.
I addressed the argument: "they are conspiracy theories-> we can use that name", this argument is irrelevant if WP:NPOV has to be considered.
Obviously we have not to assume the POV of the racist sources but the reason is not "quality": the reason is NPOV.
WP:NCON is a giudeline and could eventually be applied only in ways that respect WP:NPOV that is a policy.

--Pokipsy76 (talk) 17:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you want to be saying what your discussion in point two implies. I think you might want to consider refactoring. --PTR (talk) 17:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

What??--Pokipsy76 (talk) 17:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It is nice that you are continuing the conspiracy/alternative theories argument but that is not the question I asked. As a editor I would like to know what percentage of my readers came from the main 9/11 article,what percentage of my readers are Americans etc. The editors broke the articles into subarticles assumed really interested readers will drill down for the information I disaagree but we are guessing here. Edkollin (talk) 04:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

A lot of the conspiracy theories can be pretty briefly summarized; if people want more depth, that's what subarticles are for. In any event, the subarticles need to stay seperate, and indeed it'd be nice if there were more of them; the page is still rather too long for my liking, though it has gotten better than it used to be. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

But that still does answer the question. It is not my or your theory of what the readers want I was just using the subarticle debate as an example. My question is there or should there be tracking software to see what is holding the non-theorectical readears interest? Edkollin (talk) 21:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Another perspective

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

A related question to What should this article be called? is Should we have an article on 9/11 conspiracy theories?. Perhaps it would be an easier one to answer. It seems to me reading the arguments above that those in favour of the rename (that is, to something other than 9/11 conspiracy theories) are really saying that the topic 9/11 conspiracy theories isn't encyclopedic, while those who want to keep the name 9/11 conspiracy theories are really saying that it is. Andrewa (talk) 12:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you: informations about urban folklore about 9/11 don't deserve very much space while informations about debates and controversies on the explanations of what happened, the responsabilities, forknowledge and so on do deserve a page.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 13:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Andrewa, a topic and its name are two seperate things. I would advise you all to drop this, due to "no consensus", even though I personally would have welcomed a change. The content of the article still needs some improving...  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 14:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree that the topic and its name are two seperate things, but surely you're not saying that they are unrelated? Agree that the content of the article still needs some improving. Even agree that it would be better to drop this, but I see no chance of that happening. I think it's better to have a balanced and open debate than for the reasoned voices to drop out and leave the talk pages (including of course move proposals) to those (few) who wish to promote particular POVs.

In the case of this rename, the POVs involved are whether or not these conspiracy theories have any credibility. Those who think they have would prefer they weren't called conspiracy theories of course! And it can obviously be argued both ways as to which way Wikipedia should go, I won't repeat the arguments here. Some of them are even valid, on both sides. But most reduce to a POV. Andrewa (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

(deindent) It's no use quoting a single relevant guideline: you have to quote all the relevant guidelines. I know two of them: WP:NAME suggests to use the most common name, so readers can find the article. WP:NEUTRAL says the wording of the title should not have a negative or positive connotation. The word "conspiracy theory" CAN be USED neutrally, but because it is much more often used as pejorative term, we cannot say it IS in itself neutral. Since a move will leave a redirect, readers will still be able to find the article using the most common name, and then they will see the neutral name that we have chosen. I believe this is the best solution to comply with both guidelines at the same time. And remember, consensus can change. It's no use saying "it" has all been said before. This is the now.
If you are still opposing the move, please declare under oath that you find nothing pejorative about the term "conspiracy theory".  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 02:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That is not what WP:NAME means. Redirects mean nothing: for a time "Miserable Failure" redirected to George W. Bush. The primary motivation behind this move appears to be a simple attempt to give these theories a degree of credibility they have not earned, and being as (as you stated) "conspiracy theories" is the most widely-used term, it is also the one which should appear at the top of this article. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 02:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The disputes on this and related articles always always seem to come down to a false dichotomy fallacy. This article is about conspiracy theories, in the sense of theories lacking evidence and requiring a criminal conspiracy that remains hidden indefinitely. These are encyclopedic as folklore, but only reflect reactions, and do not provide insight into the events. Legitimate alternatives to the established narrative, if any, should not be labelled as conspiracy theories, but neither should they be in this article in the first place, since in that case they would be unrelated to the subject matter. This is the real harm of the conspiracy theory POV-pushing: valid criticisms of the conventional narrative are drowned out by nonsense, hoaxes and already-disproven conjectures. Peter Grey (talk) 03:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

And who is to decide which theories are "legitimate"? Basically you want the title to endorse your own opinion on the matter. Wikipedia policy is that article titles should not prejudge the content. Yet you keep accusing others of POV-pushing. ireneshusband (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The fact that "comnspiracy theories" *can* (generally) be used as a descriptor of the content is OK, it can also be used as a descriptor of the mainstream account. The problem is just that it is not appropriate for an enciclopedia that wants to be neutral. If you want to emphasize "lack of evidence" you should try do it in more direct and less subtle and propagandistic ways (assuming that there exists a significant authority of experts to support the claim) for example you could speak about "claims" or "allegations" instead of "theories". I mean: if you want to use the term in his meutral meaning so why don't you use another term that is less ambiguous? If you want to use the term as a slur than you are being subtle and propagandistic and that's not good for an enciclopedia.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 08:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your, i.m.o. correct, analysis, Pokipsy76! I propose we continue this discussion below at #a more honest title.  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 15:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

changing the lead

diff

current

proposed

Conspiracy theories have emerged that question the mainstream account of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Many 9/11 conspiracy theorists identify as part of the "9/11 Truth Movement," and their claims often suggest that ...

Next to the mainstream theory about the events of the September 11, 2001 attacks, Al Qaeda taking America by surprise, several circumstances surrounding the attacks have led various individuals and groups to come with alternative theories to explain the events. These conspiracy theories question the validity of the mainstream account. Many 9/11 conspiracy theorists identify as part of the "9/11 Truth Movement. Pointing out alleged anomalies, their claims often suggest that ...

The lead should make clear what this article is about: how other theories differ from the mainstream theory. The fact that many theorists identify as part of a movement is of secondary importance, and should not be so prominent. The above attempt was reverted by Ice Cold Beer. Request comments on how to proceed, any suggestions?  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 14:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Haemo, thank you for pointing out that these items are not in the rest of the article. But are you not confusing the lead with the first section?  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 14:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- But, this is the lead...the section title even says so. I've always been unhappy with mentioning the 9/11 Truth Movement so prominently in the lead, but there's never been a consensus to remove it. I also don't think you need this clause ("Al Qaeda taking America by surprise") since you Wikilink to the main attack article, and the mainstream explanation is dealt with one sentence down. It's always going to be impossible to collect an entire account into 5 words. --Haemo (talk) 21:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks good but I'd alter one sentence. It needs to be said why there are CT's. The current wording implies CT's are just a mechanism to shift blame rather than an attempt to explain events that the official account doesn't explain. "These conspiracy theories question the validity of the mainstream account due to it's failure to adequately explain the events". Wayne (talk) 16:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see you tighten up what you wrote, and I would like to see it added to the lead, as you originally proposed. As presently written the lead does not convey that--despite the presence of true "conspiracy cranks"--some very sincere, thoughtful people question the mainstream theory. To begin with, you would need to eliminate the phrase "Most conspiracy theorists...," because I doubt you can reference a poll that would support your claim that "most" is an accurate description. There are other problems as well, however I believe they can be addressed provided you are fastidious in sourcing everything. Here is a possible beginning:

Since the September 11, 2001 attacks, a growing number of people have begun to question the official version of events. (source) In particular they question that the four hijacked planes could have escaped American air defense for as long as they did, explained solely by human error, (source) and they question what role was played by the multiple simulataneous war exercises conducted that day by the U.S. military. (source) Also they question the likelihood that three steel-framed buildings might have collapsed solely due to fire, especially when only two of them were struck by aircraft (source) and there is no history of any steel-framed building having previously collapsed solely due to fire. (source) Critics note that the 9/11 Commission presumed good faith on the part of government officials, and therefore failed to ask the right questions or credit testimony that ran counter to the official version of events, in particular testimony by witnesses who claim to have suffered from secondary explosions in the buildings (source). Critics also note that President Bush refused to testify under oath, as requested by the 9/11 Commission. (source) Those who question the official version of events conclude that there may have been a coverup, either of negligence or complicity, and they demand further investigation into the matter. (source) In addition some have offered alternative theories that might better explain facts that are inconsistent with the official version of events. (source)

Several conspiracy theories have thus emerged that question the mainstream account of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Many of these are part of the "9/11 Truth Movement." Among the claims suggested in these theories are:

-that individuals in the government of the United States knew of the impending attacks and refused to act on that knowledge.

-that the attacks were a false flag operation carried out by high-level officials in the U.S. government.

-that the motive was to use the attacks as a pretext to justify overseas wars, facilitate increased military spending, and restrict domestic civil liberties.

The above might also partially solve the issue of establishing appropriate context for the introduction of "conspiracy theory" as a neutral, rather than pejorative, term. Apostle12 (talk) 19:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

They (the people questioning) don't necessarily question all the things together. Different people may have different doubts about the mainstream account.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Good point. This should be clarified.Apostle12 (talk) 07:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

First off, "Next to the mainstream theories" makes no sense grammatically or otherwise. Second, the proposed introduction is incorrect; the typical way for conspiracy theories to arise is not at all what the introduction suggests, but rather quite the opposite - conspiracy theories occur when confirmation bias takes over in someone's mind. Rather than the evidence -creating- conspiracy theories, typically someone will come up with some idea for what THEY believe happened, then try to bend the evidence to what they believe (or even make stuff up, such as the Israelis skipping work, no plane being found at the Pentagon, ect.). Titanium Dragon (talk) 12:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

However, all that said, I do agree that the 9/11 truth movement does not need such a prominant mention, if indeed it warrants a mention in the introduction at all. Titanium Dragon (talk) 12:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

When you refer to confirmation bias taking over someone's mind, Titanium Dragon, you are referring to the mind of a conspiracy crank, not the mind of a normal person. For normal people, people who are not conspiracy cranks, the questions arise exactly as the proposed lead suggests--in other words, we observe that some of the evidence is in conflict with the official version of events, then we begin to question the official version of events based on the conflicting evidence. I believe that confirmation bias may be taking over your mind here--you begin with the quite mistaken hypothesis that all those who question the official version of events are conspiracy cranks, then you bend the evidence to match what you believe. Apostle12 (talk) 21:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

changing the "origins" section

diff

Most conspiracy theorists do not accept that the four hijacked planes could have escaped American air defense for as long as they did, explained solely by human error, and they question the role of the multiple simulataneous war exercises that were held that day. Also they question the possibility of three steel frame buildings collapsing due to fire, when only two of them were hit by a plane, and bring forward witnesses who claim to have suffered from secondary explosions in the buildings. Criticising the 9/11 Commission for presuming good faith beforehand on the part of any government official, for therefore failing to ask the right questions, and for failing to include all relevant testimony into its report, they argue there was a coverup of either negligence or complicity, calling the behaviour of the President during that day "inexplicable" and noting that he refused to testify both under oath or alone, as requested by the 9/11 Commission.

My edit was reverted. The current article reads: "a number of websites, books, and films have challenged" ... that is true, but websites are not the origin of theories. People first have a theory, then make a website about it. Films and books were much later. The current wording would suggest that the origin of the theories lies in fiction, where the origin lies in a different interpretation of the same facts which led others to believe the other theory: the mainstream one. I am happy to provide sourcing for the paragraph I inserted, but perhaps someone has a better way of putting it, since I am no native English speaker? My purpose is to show which facts in particular got the theories in motion. A website is hardly a cause for the beginning of a movement, unless someone has a RS which says so?  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 14:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it has the implication you're reading here — you might solve it by just adding "a number of theories have been put forward in websites, books, and films which challenge the...". Most of the stuff in the first paragraph you added is already covered, so this might be tighter. --Haemo (talk) 21:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your general direction in thinking. It is a bit like SUVs, which always appear in the news as prime instigators, and which are credited with running people over, killing someone, or using too much petrol--it is of course the drivers of SUVs, people in other words, who do these things.

I would like to see you tighten up what you wrote, and I would like to see it added to the lead, as you originally proposed. (Please see "Changing the lead" above.) As presently written the lead does not convey that--despite the presence of true "conspiracy cranks"--some very sincere, thoughtful people question the mainstream theory. To begin with, you would need to eliminate the phrase "Most conspiracy theorists...," because I doubt you can reference a poll that would support your claim that "most" is an accurate description. There are other problems as well, however I believe they can be addressed provided you are fastidious in sourcing everything. Here is a possible beginning:

Since the September 11, 2001 attacks, a growing number of people have begun to question the official version of events. (source) In particular they question that the four hijacked planes could have escaped American air defense for as long as they did, explained solely by human error, (source) and they question what role was played by the multiple simulataneous war exercises conducted that day by the U.S. military. (source) Also they question the likelihood that three steel-framed buildings might have collapsed solely due to fire, especially when only two of them were struck by aircraft (source) and there is no history of any steel-framed building having previously collapsed solely due to fire. (source) Critics note that the 9/11 Commission presumed good faith on the part of government officials, and therefore failed to ask the right questions or credit testimony that ran counter to the official version of events, in particular testimony by witnesses who claim to have suffered from secondary explosions in the buildings (source). Critics also note that President Bush refused to testify under oath, as requested by the 9/11 Commission. (source) Those who question the official version of events conclude that there may have been a coverup, either of negligence or complicity, and they demand further investigation into the matter. (source) In addition some have offered alternative theories that might better explain facts that are inconsistent with the official version of events. (source)

Several conspiracy theories have thus emerged that question the mainstream account of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Many of these are part of the "9/11 Truth Movement." Among the claims suggested in these theories are:

-that individuals in the government of the United States knew of the impending attacks and refused to act on that knowledge.

-that the attacks were a false flag operation carried out by high-level officials in the U.S. government.

-that the motive was to use the attacks as a pretext to justify overseas wars, facilitate increased military spending, and restrict domestic civil liberties.

The above might also partially solve the issue of establishing appropriate context for the introduction of "conspiracy theory" as a neutral, rather than pejorative, term. Apostle12 (talk) 19:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I would support such a change. Go ahead and do it, when no one objects!  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 02:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You previously stated that you could provide sourcing. My time is tight right now. If you can provide bulletproof sourcing, I will make the changes. Apostle12 (talk) 07:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on it in my userspace, but help is welcome.  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 14:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's stop talking about moving it.

This is a suggestion that I've read several times. The problem is that if we continue talking about it, we'll be wasting time, at least the time of the people who don't want it changed - at least if it goes nowhere again. I mean, we can't just let others fill in to defend the current title when we're sick of defending it ourselves. Because we don't trust them.

If the title is changed, and then a move back to the current title is proposed, and we discuss it hundreds of times AGAIN, I can imagine that the supporters of the new title would be the ones arguing that we shouldn't talk about it any more. For the same ultimate reason: they don't trust us.

Ok, I wrote that from the POV of those who support the current name. But I weakly support changing the current name, so it was a little disingenuous. But here I am admitting it, so it's ok, right? Right. I think anyone with a neutral point of view would never suggest ending a discussion.

If we keep the name, we should work on making it clear that "Conspiracy theories" are often the beginning of *accurate* accounts of history. Every conspiracy necessarily starts out with efforts to have the facts concealed. Alternative conspiracy theories have the potential to make history more accurate because sometimes they present facts that contradict widely accepted falsehoods. This is really what I would like to see, which is why my support is weak.

What bothers me is that IF there are people in powerful positions who are working diligently to prevent truth from coming out (and reported in WP), their efforts will have "labeling evidence that contradicts our story as 'conspiracy theories'" as a foundation of their efforts. It would be a shame for WP to support their efforts simply because they are able to get certain experts and media organizations to use the term. "Neutral" in NPOV is being used to mean "according to experts" and "popular" rather than "lacking connotation" which seems to me the intent behind neutrality.

I have gone to the user pages for some of the contributors and discovered that sometimes it's pretty obvious that an editor is making a concerted effort to put forth a particular NON-neutral point of view, but also doing a pretty good job of keeping with WP policy. I think that's a good thing, and for me, it justifies bringing the issues up over and over again. WP is primarily an educational tool, and it is these discussions that are most educational, at least for me. I like seeing others' NON_neutral POVs. Sometimes they win me over. How about you? Dscotese (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Listening to conflicting non-neutral points of view is how I refine my own point of view. On XM radio I make a point of dividing my time between far-right, far-left and (supposedly) neutral stations. Listening only to points of view that mirror one's own take on things is simply an exercise in narcissm. Apostle12 (talk) 08:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Questionable sources

Hi everybody, a proposal is being made to ease the current restrictions on questionable sources in the verifiability policy. I think editors in this subject might have a useful viewpoint on this proposal. See Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Theories is a relevant term

If the sheep--I mean mainstream media and folk consider the Government report on 9/11 to be official then anything other than that are THEORIES. Scientists use this all the time. 9/11 theories would be a better suited title. "Conspiracy theory" is such a non-credible title, i mean when someone tells you something, and another person says "it's a conspiracy theory" person #2 is obviously saying it just to discredit said theory. It's dispicable. The entire article is written as if this is fake, which is idiotic imo. It doesn't begin to explain everything. It's written as if it is factual, but then well written "fine print" are added which basically says "but this isn't the truth cuz the gov. hasnt said it is!!!11 omgz lolz u theorists!!"

The Anti-Vandalism King (talk) 21:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course, insinuating that anyone who disagrees with you is a sheep isn't condescending at all... At any rate, what exactly are you against here? The term "conspiracy" or the term "theories"? The bottom line is that these ideas are about conspiracies and they haven't yet been completely and unequivocally proven to be true. Thus, "conspiracy theories". (Note: a theory isn't something that's false; it's something that hasn't yet been proven.) --clpo13_(talk) 22:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, conspiracy theories are a very particular type of theory, with a specific academic study of them. The fact that they tend to be looney is what has attracted the pejorative sense of the term, which people above have pointed out. --Haemo (talk) 00:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by "very particular"? What is so "particular" when a theory is about a conspiracy rather than anything else? And why this being "particular" is relevant here?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 08:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories is a descriptive term. That said, many people find it prejorative, particularly when applied to their own viewpoints, but the reality is that it would be as wrong to not call these conspiracy theories as it would be to not call Christianity a religion. I've met Christians who object to it because it implies their religion is no different from any other religion; likewise, conspiracy theorists tend to have similarly pathological beliefs and want to distinguish THEIR pathological beliefs from those of all those other nutters out htere. However, as an NPOV source it is our responsibility to classify things appropriately, and our way of doing THAT is by looking at external reputable sources' consensus on the matter. Titanium Dragon (talk) 11:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

On what grounds can you say that "conspiracy theorists tend to have similarly pathological beliefs"?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 14:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The most common causes for such comments tend to be below-average intellect, lack of critical thinking skill and blind faith in a government that is not known for truth and honesty. Bulbous (talk) 17:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Please try to remain civil and non judgmental in the talk pages. Thanks (that's a blanket statement to everyone :p). Xavexgoem (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Unless Al-Qaeda has put out a book, there is no such thing as an "official" version of the attacks. The 9/11 Commission has to be met with the same critical skepticism as any other source. Peter Grey (talk) 03:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

They're "very particular" in that they're part of a body of academic literature which has identified them as being particular, and distinct, from other kinds of beliefs and theories. That is to say, they're different from from other kinds of theories and beliefs. --Haemo (talk) 19:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Two points:

does this academic literature explicitly consider the theories in this article or it is you that identify the theories in this article to belong to the same category of this literature?
what authority does the academic literature you are citing have to be considered relevant in the discussion about the POV of this article?

--Pokipsy76 (talk) 11:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thing is you fundamentally misunderstand; the reason that the 9/11 comission report is seen as definitive is because it fundamentally it has actual evidence (something the conspiracy theories are notably lacking in), mechanisms which have a great deal of support from the engineering community (again, something the conspiracy theories are notably lacking in), and various other factors. Basically, it is confirmable and fundamentally, the consensus on the issue is that the 9/11 Comission report is substansively correct. That is why Wikipedia presents it as the primary, authoritive source on the matter - it isn't that Wikipedia is saying it is correct so much as Wikipedia is presenting it as the series of events which is most agreed on externally, which is the way we roll. NPOV is NOT presenting all viewpoints equally or giving them all equal time; NPOV is taking a neutral point of view.

And, in any event, it is not our place to -criticize- reports; it is our place to talk about them and criticism thereof, but we ourselves do not do so. Titanium Dragon (talk) 11:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The 9/11 report shouldn't even considered OFFICIAL because it's just the government saying it is. Really, what it comes down to is how biased you people are that have this section in your watchlists. There should be a specific standard within wikipedia, and if it is "the government never lies" then anything they say should be considered factual then. I disagree, but hey, it's better than arguing over a title here.

I think "9/11 alternative views" is a lot better and sounds alot more credible than "conspiracy theory" because you people lable everything as a CT if the government hasn't said it's true which is not very open minded imo.

The Anti-Vandalism King (talk) 17:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

"You people"? It's not very open-minded to assume every person who disagrees with you thinks the same. I prefer the title "conspiracy theory" because it accurately describes the content of the article ("alternative views" does the same, but it's less widely known). What the government says is true or false doesn't play into that at all. --clpo13_(talk) 08:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It's the same kind of omen-mindedness that exibits who speaks about "conspiracy theorists" and also claims that they have the same similar "pathological beliefs".--Pokipsy76 (talk) 11:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

That's quite true. However, I wasn't the one who said that. --clpo13_(talk) 11:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

con·spire (verb) \kən-ˈspī(-ə)r\ 1 a: to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or an act which becomes unlawful as a result of the secret agreement <accused of conspiring to overthrow the government>

con·spir·a·cy (noun) \kən-ˈspir-ə-sē\ 1: the act of conspiring together

These definitions are from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary. I think we can all agree that plotting to destroy the twin towers and kill 3,000 innocent people is "an unlawful or wrongful act", thus, theories that espouse such beliefs are conspiracy theories. I suppose the official explanation for 9/11 is a conspiracy theory as well, as it pertains to a bunch of fundamentalist Muslims plotting to commit an act of terrorism. But as it is the official explanation, it isn't referred to as such, as it is regarded as more than a theory. It is regarded as fact. Now there are those who complain that "conspiracy theory" is a misleading term with negative connotations. There's a reason that conspiracy theories are looked down upon: they take disparate facts and link them together in ways that fit their narrow view of "the truth", much in the way a politician will only select figures and statistics that support their point of view when giving a campaign speech or something of the like. This aside, I think conspiracy theory is a perfectly apt description of what this article is: an article about alternative theories involving conspiracies to commit the 9/11 attacks.

-Razorhead March 27, 2008

Medcab case

mediation cabal

We're looking for parties to accept/reject mediation over at the case page. Our goal is to provide a new space for discussing these issues in a blank-slate environment, and creating a structure that allows for discussion to take place without editors talking past each other (as so often happens in controversial articles). I think mediation will help resolve some of the disputes here. See you there! Xavexgoem (talk) 12:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

a more honest title

In a previous section, #Another perspective, it was candidly admitted that some editors want the current title to remain, because it "correctly" implies that the theories are unfounded in reality.

This is clearly not NEUTRAL.

So, unless someone can show these views are only held by tiny minorities, and not by significant minorities including prominent adherents, this violates policy. It's rude and slightly dishonest in any case.

So here are some options:

Unfounded 9/11 theories
9/11 theories
non-mainstream 9/11 theories
alternative 9/11 theories

Take your pick. The present title cannot stay.  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 15:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure it can, there's plenty of arguments more grounded in policy than that for keeping it where it is. At some point you're going to have to accept consensus and the previous discussions on this. The only other alternative is to take this to a larger audience and propose a topic ban for you. This is wasting too much time. Editors have better things to do than to constantly engage you on this. RxS (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

What about something not including the word "theory"? I mean something like "controversies", "debate", "cover up allegations"...--Pokipsy76 (talk) 17:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

"The September 11, 2001 Attacks :Conspiracy and Alternative Theories debate". I have always thought both conspiracy and alternative theories are accurate descriptions of them but preferred Conspiracy only because that is what they are most popularly known by. Using debate in the title is a good idea in that the article reads like a “he said” “she said” debate at many points Edkollin (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Except that there really isn't a debate. No political debate, no academic or scientific debate, there's no journalistic editorial debate. There's no debate at all among reliable sources or relevant academic community. There's one here of course, but that doesn't count. RxS (talk) 21:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

There is debate and controversy in many new media (internet) forums,message boards etc that make the one here look like a game of tiddlywinks. Go on YouTube look up 9/11 videos and check the user comments. Here is listing of various threads on a punk rock porn site of all places[49]. At best the "no debate no controversy in reliable sources" statement is true of the controlled demolition theory and about journalistic debate. I would call the pilots for 9/11 truth (who question the official version but explicitly say they are not conspiracy theorists), The Organizer of Operation Gladio, former German Defense Minister Andreas von Bulow are people who have a degree of expertise in what they are talking about

In two years of occasional editing of this article while I have not always agreed with how things were done I believed in the good faith of the editors and believed this article to be the best source of information about this topic. Based on various editors comments here within the last two months I can not say that now. I know this violates a basic tenant of Wikipedia editing but that is the way I feel Edkollin (talk) 08:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Then replace debate with "controversies". I support Edkollin's suggestion.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 09:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

There isn't a controversy either...in this context the words debate and controversy are pretty interchangeable. There's no political controversy, no academic or scientific controversy etc...RxS (talk) 15:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

This is wrong: in the controversy page you can read "A controversy or dispute occurs when parties actively disagree, argue about, or debate, a matter of opinion". We actually have parties that at least disagree therefore we have a controversy.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 14:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

We do, but the academic and scientific community doesn't, which is the operative fact here. We don't name articles here based on how we feel about them but how reliable sources see them. RxS (talk) 15:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Now, wait a minute. You (Xietwel) are ignoring WP:FRINGE#Reporting on the levels of acceptance. (And we are allowed to use "clear error of fact" to suggest that the publisher may not be reliable, although not to reject an individual paper in an apparently peer-reviewed journal.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually that page supports a name change. It specifically mentions that Conspiracy theories are a fringe. While some 911 conspiracy theories are fringe many are definitely not. The last Zogby Poll found 31% of Americans believe in 911 CT's (the Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll says 52% of people aged under 55 and 24% of those over 55 for an average of 36% believe 911 conspiracy theorys). 67% of those polled believed there was some sort of coverup. 16% of Americans believe the CD theory. The NBC poll...27% said "These theories are absurd" and 67% said some CT's are true. Time Magazine said of the Scripps poll: "Thirty-six percent adds up to a lot of people. This is not a fringe phenomenon. It is a mainstream political reality." Is Time an RS? BTW...one of several articles with the Poll results calls them "alternative 9/11 explanations". Wayne (talk) 20:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

But the vast majority call them conspiracy theories. And WP:FRINGE#Reporting on the levels of acceptance says:

Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community

None of the polls you mention have anything to do with the "relevant academic community" thus making them fringe:

We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study.[3] Examples include conspiracy theories, ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have not gained scientific consensus... (Emphasis mine)

RxS (talk) 21:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I like the "debate" and "controversies" suggestions !
As for the FRINGE arguments: please then quote from policy where it would say that we should ridicule significant minority views, in order to warn our readers off. If you want to warn the readers, do so explicitely, not subliminally using the present dodgy title.  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 11:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

There isn't and we're not. RxS (talk) 15:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Warn them off how? Most people looking for conspiracy theories regarding 9/11 are going to look in the first place that comes to mind. Calling something a conspiracy theory isn't ridiculing it. It's an accurate statement: theories regarding conspiracies. --clpo13_(talk) 11:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

How? Suppose the title was: "9/11 allegations of complicity" then a warning could be given: "These allegations are widely held to be baseless by such and such persons, institutions, whatever". For the rest, please see the mediation which is ongoing.  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 05:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It is hard to decide what an appropriate title would be considering the content of the article runs the gamut from controlled demolition hypothesis (which doesn't posit any specific conspirators) to no-plane theories (which are almost universally repudiated). The exclusion of the 19-hijackers theory further complicates matters. The very division of possible culpable parties between Al-Qaeda on the one hand and "all others" on the other hand automatically skews the debate. The notion that the Al-Qaeda theory is a "fact" whereas any other theory is "lacking evidence" betrays the policy of Wikipedia:Verifiability. This article (and the host of associated articles) exists in its current form because its content was excluded from the main 9/11 article, a circumstance that needs to be more deeply examined. But since this is what we have to work with I would suggest the most general title is also the most neutral. "Allegations of collusion or foul play in regards to 9/11" is probably too long. "9/11 theories" is okay but also suffers from the "lacking evidence" connotation. No theory is motivated by a *lack* of evidence Oneismany (talk) 03:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I would indeed like a more clear seperation in content in: allegations of coverup of mistakes in preventing, allegations regarding LIHOP, MIHOP, and of course the mainstream theory and the variants thereof regarding suspected motives and modus operandi. An important thing to note is that it never starts with a theory. First there are the bare facts; second, there are suspicions, and only in the third and final stage, there is a conspiracy theory. Are we planning on reporting on all three stages or just the third stage in this article? (Apropos: The FBI is still dubious about the third stage, as far as Usama bin Laden is concerned, by the way.)  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 05:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories are motivated by a lack of evidence, since they are deliberately constructed to be unfalsifiable. Peter Grey (talk) 05:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

That's your opinion, that's not a fact. Fortunately, the mainstream theory has proven falsifiable.  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 05:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Proven by whom? Any reliable sources? In any case, we don't decide on "facts", we report what reliable sources say on whatever topics we're writing about. And by the way, when you say "Fortunately, the mainstream theory has proven falsifiable", your POV is showing. RxS (talk) 05:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you mean that the conspiracy theories are motivated by a lack of evidence for the standard theory in which case I agree and take back what I said. Oneismany (talk) 06:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Continued reverting

By what standard do Arthur Rubin and Ice Cold Beer remove the external link I added--well, actually it was another editor who originally added it; I only restored it--yet leave the other external links untouched? Certainly the discussions presented in the journal are of at least as high quality as those still remaining.

Simply to announce as "pathetic" and "laughable" all the submissions available for view at http://journalof911studies.com/ does not make them so. Apostle12 (talk) 10:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

notability of www.journalof911studies.com ?

http://journalof911studies.com/

(it was deleted at least twice)

I would presume it is notable WP:N, because the people who write in it are. If notable people decide they need their own magazine, is it not relevant for this article?  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 10:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

If the 9/11 truth movement is notable enough to have this article of "fruitloop" theories, they must have some websites which are notable too, for inclusion in this article. If the above website is not notable enough, it should be replaced with more notable ones. NOTCENSOR.  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 11:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Many of the submissions available for view at http://journalof911studies.com/ appear to be of clearly higher quality than those available at the other sites remaining under "External Links." Perhaps that is the problem; God forbid that some of us who question the official version of events might be revealed as thoughtful and rational. Apostle12 (talk) 11:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I have been admonished to refrain from reverting, though it was Ice Cold Beer and Arthur Rubin who reverted; I merely restored material. So, please justify your reversions, ICB and AR. You have used the words "pathetic," "laughable" and "non-notable." Please provide specific examples and rationales explaining why this link should not be restored. Apostle12 (talk) 11:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not a question of notability. It's just a bad WP:EL. There are no reasonable 9/11 conspiracists, just a few who have achieved a large enough following for it to be appropriate to link to them as good examples of 9/11 conspiracism. John Nevard (talk) 12:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

As fine an example of a prior judgment as I have ever seen. "There are no reasonable 9/11 conspiracists," therefore any material demonstrating a commitment to reason and the scientific method must be considered irrelevant and excluded from the article. Apostle12 (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be listed in the Truther article, as it's relevent to that group, although not actually relevant to the theories? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

My problem with the link is that the Journal of 9/11 Studies isn't a real journal; it merely masquerades as one. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 17:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

try http://scholar.google.nl/scholar?hl=nl&lr=&q=%22Journal+of+9%2F11+Studies%22 — I assume that settles it!  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 23:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The Journal of 9/11 Studies is quite "real" Ice Cold Beer, as real as any cyberspace construction, including Wikipedia. The scholars who have contributed material are committed to using reason and the scientific method to explore evidential anamolies that do not fit the official version of events regarding 9/11. See, for example, http://journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf. Is it the reality of the contributors you question? Their credentials? Or perhaps you doubt that those involved submit to peer review of their submissions? Are their arguments specious? What defines a "real" journal in your opinion? Apostle12 (talk) 21:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I quite agree J911S is real. I don't think it's notable, "scientific", peer reviewed, or accurate. — Arthur Rubin |

This article, which appears in Journal of 911 Studies, strives for a high degree of scientific accuracy, and has been peer-reviewed. http://journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf How can you make such a blanket statement? Please be specific: What inaccuracies do you notice? In what way is the article "unscientific"? How do you know it has not been peer-reviewed; is that only an opinion, or do you base it on specific evidence? Apostle12 (talk) 02:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

(talk) 00:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

"don't think is notable" — Then please reply to my argument of 23:20, above.  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 00:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

(deindenting) There are (not counting this disputed link) 2 links to aspects of the 911 truth movement and 1 link to a debunking site. ~~I propose to add this disputed link, making three, and then also two debunking sites for balance.~~ For debunking we may consider http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon.html which combines debunking with conspiracy theorizing!  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 23:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I have a new proposal in the section below: undo the unwarrented cleanup of January 28, for starters.  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 00:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused what the problem here is exactly. What exactly are you saying? IWikipedia is not a collection of junk and this article threatens to become exactly that if we aren't careful. Are you asking if this is an acceptable source, or an acceptable external link, or an acceptable article, or what? Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

External links cleanup January 28 : Wrongly assumed consensus?

This text is from Archive 16.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External Links etc

I cleaned out the external links section (pro and con). Wikipedia is not a link farm and many of the links fail WP:EL. The section was far too large for the subject and included videos of uncertain copyright status, links mainly intended to promote a website, sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject etc. In general, there was too much link farming going on. As you add links please make sure they follow WP:EL and that the section doesn't grow into another advocacy section. RxS (talk) 02:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This is an explanation I can live with.--Joseph.nobles (talk) 04:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I copied the above from Archive 16, the text was archived on February 23. I think we may still need this text, concerning the debate over one of those links. Also, I want to object to this cleanup. Agreed upon links should not be deleted "en masse". Trusting Rx S, I assumed only a few links were removed, which would seem reasonable, and I did not check his edit; I am not watching this article every day. I now see that the number of links has been reduced from 60 to 3. That is WP:BOLD indeed! If you claim that many of them do not follow WP:EL, specify. I agree that 60 may be a bit too much, but from 60 to 3 does not seem reasonable to me. I assume there is no consensus for this, and I will revert this January 28 cleanup when at least 2 other editors agree that this cleanup has no consensus, and then we can discuss how to weed out the excess links. OK?  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 00:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the cleanup; the section was out of hand and I think it was more than acceptable to trim it significantly. Given the nature of this article we have to be very vigiliant about the external links list. Titanium Dragon (talk) 00:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes -- it is obvious that there was no consensus for this 1/28 "cleanup." This was actually more of a muddy-up, clearly intended to "jam" questioning of Bush regime propaganda. Wowest (talk) 03:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, not paranoidapedia. The reason the ELs were removed was because there were far too many of them and, really, they weren't all that relevant. It became a steadily growing group of conspiracy and anti-conspiracy websites, videos, and the like and it simply needed to be chopped down. We need to have a short list of ELs, which need to be fairly well-balanced and informative and NOT be personal promotions of viewpoints and the like.

The cut links included many pro and anti-conspiracy ELs; it seems to me that you didn't even LOOK at what got removed. Suppression? Hardly. Quit being paranoid.

If you see links from the cut EL list which seem like they are INFORMATIVE, bring them here so we can discuss them. Titanium Dragon (talk) 03:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

http://journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf Quite informative, in my opinion. Apostle12 (talk) 03:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to second that nomination. I don't go there that often, but last time I was there, they had a very gentlemanly, scholarly debate going on in the letters section. Wowest (talk) 04:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

discussion of EL (external links)

Since at least three users disagree with the amount of cleanup of January 28, I feel the best way is to discuss the listed EL's one by one before deleting (or keeping) them. If you want to delete any, please specify where they fail in the WP:EL guideline or why they are superfluous. In my opinion we do not need to link to every site out there, only to the best and the most prominent. 60 sites is a lot: it would help our readers to trim it to at least half of that.  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 12:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note that you can edit each link seperately: then, in preview, you will not see the correct markup, but see only the table tags, because the begin and end of the table are outside of that little subsubsection. After you save, it should look ok again.  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 13:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

None, Wikipedia is not a link farm nor is it a web directory. And just as a additonal note, this table makes this page difficult to read/use. Mind if I collapse or close it? RxS (talk) 15:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

StrangeLove, don't act without consensus. Xiutwel, you represent my say as well. --Striver - talk 08:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I took them back out (both pro and con)...by the way this table is impossible to read/use. The links in question constituted way more links than we need or is really allowed per WP:EL. If there's one you want please single it out, but just don't add them wholesale like that. RxS (talk) 05:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the point is rather you removed them wholesale on January 28. Could you please cite the specific parts of WP:EL you are concerned about? Both in general, for the total amount of links, and specifically, for specific links which do not meet up in your opinion? The entire policy is 3300 words, and it seems to me unlikely that 60 links need to be reduced to 3. Also, I've made two keep votes below already, do you agree about those?  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 05:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I did, and the editor I was discussing it with agreed. And no one else objected...even you say we could get by with less. I have no problem with restoring some of them in a controlled way but not just loading them all back on. As far as WP:EL goes, in the links to avoid section it reads Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research Many of the links fell under that section...but in general there were just too many, see WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a directory. RxS (talk) 05:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

RxS: I fell for it. Again, I trusted your judgement, and I regret it. You missed this bit, concerning "misleading sites": "Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article". You can see it yourself, a few lines up, right at the top of the section.  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 07:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I notice that http://www.journalof911studies.com did not make it back onto the list for comment. Despite objections that it is not "notable," the fact remains that it is edited by physicist Steven E. Jones and theologist David Ray Griffith, certainly two of the most notable, responsible and outspoken skeptics of the official version of events. The journal also demonstrates a very high level of professionalism in its peer-review policies. Apostle12 (talk) 05:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Apostle12, I say the above journal is notable, because its editors are.
RxS: "no one objected..." it would have helped me if you had said explicitely that you removed 95% of the links. I ignored your action at first, because I trusted you. I disagree with the wholesale removal, and I do not see my edit as a wholesale adding, but as a -temporary- undo of your wholesale cleanup and I still feel that this is the way we should procede: restore the status quo of January 28 while discussing.
Another site I would like listed, is: [urls removed as copyvio site] They have a lot of verifiable information. Any objections?  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 06:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I think links acceptability should be based mostly on the links popularity and information value. We can't exclude Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research as who is to determine inaccuracy? For example it is undeniable that Popular Mechanics used factually inaccurate material and unverifiable research in "Debunking 9/11 Myths" yet it is still treated almost as a peer review source. As such, exclusion of pro conspiracy links for failing this would also require exclusion of Popular Mechanics even though it remains a valuable resource despite it's inaccuracies, a fact that also applies for many truth sites. Another point is that although 60 links is excessive the controversy of the topic requires more links than is usual. Wayne (talk) 08:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Both of the above-mentioned links (http://www.journalof911studies.com and [url removed, copyvio site] are extremely popular and have very high information value. I would like to see them added immediately. The current edit, which lists the links according to the pro or con status seems very good to me--I DO like to read both sides, and this makes it much easier. Apostle12 (talk) 11:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Wayne, Apostle12, I will add both links below to be discussed.

I removed the table that once sat in this place. It mucked up the page badly, especially the TOC. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Sibel Edmonds??

The article has nothing about Sibel Edmonds and what she discovered! --Espoo (talk) 10:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You are right, and please help repair this lacune! I propose to include other whistleblowers, like Anthony Shaffer, John O'Neill etc.  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 12:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Remember, folks, this article is not a respository for a bunch of 9/11 related junk. Please make sure to keep any additions relevant. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to Sibel Edmonds? It seems that what Sibel Edmonds discovered and reported is so important and even so well corroborated that this article may need to be renamed because "conspiracy theory" does not include illicit activities, sloppiness, incompetence, sabotage, intimidation, corruption, etc. that were not planned but that definitely helped cause 9/11. Her claims have even already been grudgingly acknowledged in part by the authorities and courts. --Espoo (talk) 16:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Notable vs. non-notable, reliable vs. unreliable, mature vs. immature

Editor Arthur Rubin questions the notability of the source www.pilotsfor911truth.org and has flagged the source (unreliable source?).

#1. It seems to me that simply saying a source is "not notable" is different than implying the source is "unreliable."

#2 In either case this is a little like a woman telling you that you are "immature." What can one say?! "I am TOO!"....which sounds immature. How exactly does one prove that one is "notable" or "reliable."

As I look over the list of contribtors to www.pilotsfor911truthl.org, I note that the names and the positions of those contributors seem plenty solid enough. And it is certainly true, as the source points out, that for many people who come forward with their 9/11 views the result is that the organizations they work for simply fire them or force them to resign (physicist Steve Jones, for example). Which, I am sure, accounts for the fact that ALL the visible military contributors to this website are retired.

The charges leveled by Arthur Rubin are simply too vague. As such they are frivolous, and I would ask Arthur Rubin to please remove the flag, unless he can provide solid evidence that the source in question is truly "unreliable." Failing such solid evidence, I intend to remove the tag. Apostle12 (talk) 06:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that what Arthur objects to is that because the Pilots for 9/11 Truth are such a small and unimportant part of the 9/11 Truth community, we shouldn't use them as a source to speak for the entire truth movement. A cite from 911truth.org would be better. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

No part of a movement can represent the movement, it's not hierarchial or democratic. It's more like wikipedia. More importantly, the sentence in question is not addressing the whole movement, but the specific subpart which is not pushing theories.
Arthur Robin wrote as an edit-comment: (This site seems not to be notable even within the "truth movement"). See e.g. this google search  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 08:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If it were like Wikipedia, then we couldn't use it for a reference, except about itself (Pilots for 911 Truth). Perhaps you should rephrase.... In any case, Ice Cold Beer has part of the reason I don't think it should it should be used as a source here. The fact that their first pronouncements were so incorrect as to details of what every pilot should know that I (having taken a few "pinch-hitter" reviews while my mother was alive and piloting) could see that they were incorrect is another part, although it could be used as a reference for their stated goals. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are arguing. The site is far more accurate than most debunking sites such as Popular Mechanics. We have that site despite it's inaccuracies and obvious partisan viewpoint. The Pilots for 911 site are people speaking in their area of expertise and attempting to be unbiased. In fact the site attempts to debunk conspiracy theories as shown by this statement in one of the main articles of wanting to "silence all these Conspiracy theorists". The site also is informative as it concentrates on a narrow aspect of the day. Wayne (talk) 16:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW. This site is the only website that actually has photostat images of WTC designer John Skilling's 1964 White Paper showing the buildings were designed to withstand a 600 mph aircraft impact and that the structural calculations covered more than 1200 pages. Wayne (talk) 17:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The "is far more accurate than most debunking sites" may be new; when an article for the organization was first proposed, that clearly wasn't accurate. (The "black box" altitude measurements for AA 77 are still bogus, though, as the barometric pressure adjustment in the black box seems to be wrong, and P911T failed to notice it.)

As for the 600 mph, wasn't it reported that the originals of the documents were in WTC? How did P911T get them?

Still, none of this is helpful in terms of editing the article. In fact, getting back to the questioned text, all we can really say in regard the goals and methodology of the group is what they say their goals are, as there are no independent WP:RS. Hence, the question of whether they are a notable group is also irrelevant. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't vouch for what the site used to be as I only read it for the first time yesterday. What I have read there is interesting and it seems they go to lengths to avoid going further than the evidence allows so to me appears nuetral. That barometric part worries me as well but the evidence supports it being correct which means there needs to be some research to find the reason. It doesn't seem to fit any conspiracy theory which is probably why P911T failed to notice it.
The original Skilling documents were in WTC1 and the copies in WTC7 so no longer exist. The Skilling white paper was a 3 page summary of the documents outlining the main engineering features (such as the results of aircraft impact and the fact that the WTC were constructed to be 16 times stronger than any other building) and was available online but the website later reduced resolution so although they still exist online they are now unreadable. Pilots for 911 had copied them before the resolution was reduced so have the only readable copy online. NIST have the original white paper. Wayne (talk) 09:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Passports of the Hijackers

The article is missing discussion of the hijackers' passports. Apparently some were recovered from the rubble. As it is rather strange that nothing else survived but intact passports of hijackers, this has fueled the idea of a false flag operation. Please add a section to discuss this. 58.160.184.145 (talk) 21:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The article needs a section that lists the pieces of evidence that are most suggestive - not analysis, but unexplained facts such as NIST's admission about what they did not analyze and the presence of molten metal in the rubble and the puffs of ejected material from the sides of the building etc. For example, I added these bullet points on another page. Really, what I'm learning from all the bickering going on about the 9/11 conspiracies is that WP can really teach people to do their own research rather than accepting whatever they've been told. It's a very valuable lesson. Dscotese (talk) 04:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

We went over this just a couple weeks ago. "pieces of evidence that are most suggestive"...suggestive to who? Suggestive of what? Who judges? There are tens of thousands pieces of evidence...do we include them all? Do we make a list of every "fact" someone thinks is important? As we talked about before, listing factoids is not something that makes any sense, choosing what to include is synthesis. Another valuable lesson is to not believe everything you read on the internet...that lesson isn't sinking in for a lot of people. RxS (talk) 05:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

"Do we make a list of every "fact" someone thinks is important?" - we already did - that's what is in the article. But when people include facts that are suggestive of the controlled demolition hypothesis, they are removed for one reason or another. Does it say anywhere that molten metal was found in the rubble days after the towers fell? Does it mention the heat signature indicated on satellite photos over the next few weeks indicates something a lot hotter than the burning of a couple planes full of jet fuel and a building full of office supplies? These are facts, not analysis, but facts that suggest the conspiracy, and they should be included, especially in the section that describes the conspiracy theory, as they are the only reasonable paths to debunking (or, dare I say it?) verifying the the conspiracy theories.

And you ask "Who judges?" and also point out that "choosing what to include is synthesis." So you can answer your own question. Whoever does the synthesis does the judging. It should be all of us, in my opinion. Isn't that what WP is all about? Dscotese (talk) 17:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

....no, what's in the article are facts deemed relevant or important by reliable sources. I personally think it's of extreme importance to this article that on September 11th 1991, a motion was denied in Sexton v. Neal, 803 S.W.2d 928, 304 Ark. 660 (Ark., 1991). Why should we include your fact and not mine? --Haemo (talk) 22:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see why it's important that the hijackers' passports were recovered. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 08:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not a question on whether it IS important, but on whether it is perceived as important. Which is obvious.
The passports are in another subarticle, Responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks, so anyone can take text from there and put it here.  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 13:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Who perceives them as important? Do we put all facts that someone perceives as important in the article? Or just what reliable sources perceive as important? This article is not a collection of date points and factoids. RxS (talk) 15:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

People reading the article should be allowed to judge, that's who, whether or not a "fact" or "factoid" (piece of evidence potentially relevant to the article) is indeed important. Subtle terms can bias an opinion. Like the earlier argument for calling it an alternative theory instead of a conspiracy theory. The whole purpose of Wikipedia is to present an unbiased picture. If you are judging what is relevant or not, is that not a bias?(Deminizer (talk) 17:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC))

We are not judging what is relevant. Reliable sources are. Indeed, Wikipedian's deciding what is, and is not relevant, violates our policies on original research — the claim that importance is "obvious", yet no reliable sources point out that importance, is an example of exactly that kind of bias. --Haemo (talk) 18:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You are judging. You are judging what sources are reliable. Semantics are tricks used to obscure neutrality.(Deminizer (talk) 17:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC))

How do we select what facts to include then? That's not a rhetorical question....how? Sounds to me like you want to include all the thousands and thousands of facts and data points. If we don't judge what's relevant we have to include everything right? RxS (talk) 19:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

If you are judging at all, their is a bias. Webster's definition of judge: to form an opinion about through careful weighing of evidence and testing of premises. An opinion is certainly not neutral. A consensus is, when all facts are weighed and deliberated by a consensus, a bias will be eliminated. That, I believe, is what most here fear. (Deminizer (talk) 17:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC))

This indicates that WP assumes that every editor is a reliable source, but really, it looks like Haemo has confused the fact-selection process (our edits) with the fact-assertion process (the documents we use as sources). Strangelove has got it right: we include all the 1000s of pieces of info - at least somewhere in WP - that any editor thinks are relevant, as long as they can be sourced. Over time, editors will learn to preserve whatever value other editors are trying to add. That is the essence of the Good Faith Dscotese (talk) 17:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Haemo hasn't confused anything....the fact selection process is driven by what our policies say, and that's pretty much the end of it. We don't include every fact ever published about a topic because we are not a random collect of facts, we don't allow POV forks, we don't include what unreliable sources claim are facts and we certainly do not include any facts that any editors thinks is relevant. That's what you have confused. What we do use as the inclusion standard is what reliable sources say are relevant. Period. good faith has nothing at all to do with this —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rx StrangeLove (talk • contribs) 17:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

We are not judging what is relevant. Reliable sources are. Indeed, Wikipedian's deciding what is, and is not relevant, violates our policies on original research (Haemo, above)

Haemo, this is your opinion. It is NOT policy. In fact, it goes right against it. Give me the guideline quotation I've asked you for, five times by now, or stop making these claims.
In my interpretation of the guidelines, we can in principle include any fact once it has been reported on by RS. (Just as long as we avoid synthesis: suggesting unwarrented conclusions from juxtaposing unrelated facts.) Then, we can include those facts which are deemed important by signifiant minorities. We can use the primary sources for evaluating whether these people find these things important. We can simply look at their websites, and assess. Then we can put it into the article. It is when we would explicitely claim in the article text that these people find these things important, that things would get more difficult. In the absense of RS, we would need to attribute such claims and the whole thing would get rather vague, so we are not doing that.
The beauty of wikipedia is: every editor has his/her own bias, and together we can still produce neutral articles. You are i.m.o. destroying that by erroneously claiming that we should follow the RS in their fact selection. It makes me mad. The RS have their own bias. Even we have a residual WP:Systemic bias. It is absolutely 'not done' to claim that the US government was behind the attacks. Wikipedia should not claim that, even if it were true. Only after it would become undisputed could we do so. How could a major newspaper remain in operation when it did that now? It would instantly gain 10% of subscribers but at the same time loose half. No newspaper wants a 40% drop in subscribers and advertisers. How can you claim we should follow these commercial entities in their opinion in order to remain neutral? Be grateful they are still reporting the facts which are needed to see the truth hidden behind the lines of the editorials. Quote the guidelines, stop this baseless referring to them.  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 10:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

330 of the 100,000s of civ. engineers + architects

(diff 2) Example: President Bush is also a tiny minority, yet his views are shared by many. We can write what he says. When 330 people express a view, it does not mean it is a tiny minority view. I am reincluding the statement in the lead, that first Haemo and then Arthur Robin removed. Let's discuss here before removing it again?  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 13:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually it does, 330 people are indeed a tiny minority. Especially when there's no way to verify whether that number contains real engineers and architects. patriotsquestion is not a reliable source and cannot be used to ref either the number of people involved or their real life qualifications. RxS (talk) 15:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't coordinate my edit adding tags to the lead with RxS's comment here, although I agree with it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I added a fact tag instead of patriotsquestion911 and unreliable because patriotsquestion911 can't be used as a ref for that statement in any case. RxS (talk) 15:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

There are hundreds of thousands of engineers and architects in America alone. The primary source demonstrates that 330-ish of them disagree with the conclusion — however, we have no way of knowing their numbers are accurate, or valid, as the source is unreliable. A tiny minority view dubiously expressed by an unreliable source should not be given the same weight or credence as a reliable source expressing that the majority view — especially in the lead. --Haemo (talk) 19:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You write as though you know the score--that is how many agree with the official version of 9/11 events and how many do not. You do not know the score, therefore you have no way to know whether this is a tiny minority view or not.Apostle12 (talk) 20:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

We have a reliable source which states that most "The community of civil engineers generally accepts the mainstream account". We have no source for the number, or professional accreditation of those who do not accept it. The statement is already qualified, and without a source to support a more substantial qualification it's not really helpful. --Haemo (talk) 21:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but the universe still contains such qualities as truth and common sense. Your "reliable" source had the nerve to speak for all engineers, most of whom he has obviously never met. As far as I can tell, there are hundreds of thousands of engineers who have never publicly expressed any opinion at all. There are a handful, in the employ of the U.S. Government who have expressed one opinion, and there are three hundredish seasoned, employed professional architects and engineers who have listed their names and locations, and, in most cases, their photographs, calling for a new investigation. This is entirely verifiable. You can find out the addresses and phone numbers of most of these professionals, and you can call them as verify that they did, indeed, call for a new investigation. You cannot do this, of course, with the anonymous "majority" from your "reliable" source. Wowest (talk) 22:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

We don't know how many of the "330" now support a call for a new study; under the circumstances, the most we could assert is that they called for a new study at one (not necessarily the same), time. We might say that some (330 doesn't qualify as many) self-proclaimed (we haven't verified their credentials, and we don't know that the source has, even if it were reliable) engineers have called (at one time) for a new investigation. If you want to include that, with all the relevant caveats, I wouldn't object, although I still doubt the reliability of the source. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

If you think the reliable source is wrong is their assessment, then find a reliable source to dispute their contention. Don't vent at me about how you dislike the "reliable" source, and try to re-insert material which is not supported by sources and is undue weight. It might surprise you that the standard on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — we can't verify anything about these people except what Arthur summarizes above. Put that way, you can see why it's inappropriate for the lead. --Haemo (talk) 22:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

(after way too many edit conflicts) Haemo and Arthur are correct. The situation is similar to that at Intelligent design. The existence of the some 700 signatories of A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism does not override the fact that the reliable sources state that the relevant scientific communities do not agree with the claims being made. The list situation is very similar in that we have a partisan list of people with less than clear credentials making a statement which is when you actually read the statement much weaker than some of its proponents would describe it as. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Everyone seems to have overlooked a very relevant fact. It is that 330 engineers + architects who have investigated 911 support a call for a new study compared to maybe 300 engineers + architects who have investigated 911 and 99,700 engineers + architects who have not investigated 911 that support the official theory (which also includes those who take no sides on it). Is the 330 a minority? Depends on context and if we only include those who have investigated then they are a sizable minority. They are even a majority if we include only those who have publicly stated their position. Wayne (talk) 03:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Except for that pesky reliable source which states that the community of civil engineers rejects the hypothesis — it's hard to reject something without studying it. But, you know, an unreliable source with 330 unverifiable names with unverifiable credentials can be a majority in some contexts too! --Haemo (talk) 06:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Back to JoshuaZ ... nonsense, sir. We have 330 people whose credentials are listed on an unimpeachable website. The website certifies that it has verified the credentials of each professional signator. This was not originally the case, but became necessary when the wingnuts who support the Official Conspiracy Theory initiated a campaign of harassment by registering with obviously fictional and fraudulent names and credentials and by making postings on various websites encouraging others to do the same thing. They did us a great favor. They forced the website to restrict signators to those who could be verified. Each professional signator has the right to revoke his or her endorsement. There is no evidence that Richard Gage is anything but honest, so, in the face of his assertions, traditional American business ethics requires that his word be accepted as given. The burden of proof is clearly on the people making derogatory comments about AE911.com to demonstrate that its claims are false. Wowest (talk) 05:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

"Unimpeachable"? It's not a reliable source, and there's no way to verify any claim they make besides their say-so. That's not how Wikipedia works, though you have clearly demonstrated that you don't care one whit for Wikipedia's policies. --Haemo (talk) 06:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It is a verifiable, primary source. When reliable sources are speaking about "the community", their statement usually reflects a guess based upon a loose impression unless they are reporting on some representative inquiry. It therefore makes sense to use this primary source to balance that statement. The reader can now make his own conclusions: "330 nutcases" or "ground for further investigation". I hope all can live with this, and made the edit accordingly.  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 10:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
It's a primary source...for their organization claims. We have no way of knowing if their claims are accurate, or correct. We have no way of knowing anything about the claims beyond "these people said them". That's why it's an unreliable source, and why it shouldn't be used in the article. It has about the same validity as me writing a website with 500 names. --Haemo (talk) 20:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Patriotsquestions is absolutely not an acceptable source, as it is not a reliable source. Furthermore, it is unacceptable per WP:BLP. It lists individuals "who question 9/11" that really should not be on the list. For example, the Pentagon police officers do not belong on the list. The officers explained that they saw American Airlines Flight 77 crash into the Pentagon. Yet, LyteTrip et al. nitpick what the officers said and incorporate it into their theory that Flight 77 flew over the Pentagon instead of crashed. The officers do not agree with any of the conspiracy theories nor "question" the "official story". It would violate WP:BLP and WP:RS to link to that site and entirely unacceptable to cite it as a reference. --Aude (talk) 01:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Aude, you have still not replied to my query on this on your talk page. Yet you found time to revert other edits of mine. Please respond.  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 04:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

330 of the 100,000s of civ. engineers + architects/Blanket statements

There has been a lot of editing about this. Let's discuss it on talk in detail then.

(cur) (last) 06:48, 2 March 2008 Rx StrangeLove (Talk | contribs) (105,738 bytes) (don't need that qualifier) (undo)
(cur) (last) 06:43, 2 March 2008 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs) (105,790 bytes) (attribute, then. Or show which survey they have undertaken to investigate the general acceptance.) (undo)
(cur) (last) 06:19, 2 March 2008 Haemo (Talk | contribs) m (105,738 bytes) (Reverted to revision 195273555 by Hydnjo; It explicitly says that in the source; if it's disputed, find a source disputing it.) (undo)
(cur) (last) 06:14, 2 March 2008 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs) (105,715 bytes) (Bazant, Zdenek P. and Mathieu Verdure. are no authority on "the general community", it just their private opinion) (undo)
(cur) (last) 06:05, 2 March 2008 Hydnjo (Talk | contribs) (105,738 bytes) (dab Mainstream (terminology) link) (undo)
(cur) (last) 05:35, 2 March 2008 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs) (105,713 bytes) (→Origins and reception: Bülow, Meacher, new paragraph) (undo)
(cur) (last) 01:32, 2 March 2008 Aude (Talk | contribs) (105,079 bytes) (→Supporting conspiracy theories: rm patriotsquestions link per WP:BLP, WP:EL, ...) (undo)
(cur) (last) 21:21, 1 March 2008 Arthur Rubin (Talk | contribs) (105,205 bytes) (still doesn't seem notable. Undid revision 195186988 by Complete Truth (talk)) (undo)
(cur) (last) 21:14, 1 March 2008 Complete Truth (Talk | contribs) (106,709 bytes) (→Court cases related to conspiracy theories: New York Times reports on Exotic Weapon and "No-Plane" Court Cases) (undo)
(cur) (last) 20:52, 1 March 2008 Haemo (Talk | contribs) m (105,205 bytes) (→Main forms: we actually only need the little tag) (undo)
(cur) (last) 20:47, 1 March 2008 Haemo (Talk | contribs) m (105,240 bytes) (→Origins and reception: bad article use; implies editorial voice) (undo)
(cur) (last) 20:46, 1 March 2008 Haemo (Talk | contribs) m (105,244 bytes) (→Origins and reception: fix wording, caps) (undo)
(cur) (last) 20:45, 1 March 2008 Haemo (Talk | contribs) (105,238 bytes) (→Origins and reception: why mention this if it's never used again?) (undo)
(cur) (last) 20:45, 1 March 2008 Haemo (Talk | contribs) (105,248 bytes) (→Origins and reception: unsupported/unsupportable by sources) (undo)
(cur) (last) 16:37, 1 March 2008 Rx StrangeLove (Talk | contribs) (105,394 bytes) (rv, see talk, (not a reliable source)...no consensus for this addition, lot's of discussion on the talk page) (undo)
(cur) (last) 16:30, 1 March 2008 Wowest (Talk | contribs) (105,655 bytes) (Undid revision 195109821 by Eleland (talk)) (undo)
(cur) (last) 13:19, 1 March 2008 Eleland (Talk | contribs) (105,394 bytes) (rv puffery) (undo)
(cur) (last) 10:17, 1 March 2008 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs) (105,655 bytes) (This is the most factual, and should satisfy both sides. Undid revision 194990026 by JoshuaZ (talk)) (undo)
(cur) (last) 22:10, 29 February 2008 JoshuaZ (Talk | contribs) (105,394 bytes) (rv to last by Arthur. compare for example Intelligent design for how to handle this sort of thing generally. Arthur is correct) (undo)
(cur) (last) 22:07, 29 February 2008 Wowest (Talk | contribs) (105,440 bytes) (Undid revision 194974030 by Arthur Rubin (talk) WEIGHT: 300 loud outweighs 100,000 silent. The Nays have it.) (undo)
(cur) (last) 21:00, 29 February 2008 Arthur Rubin (Talk | contribs) (105,394 bytes) (WP:UNDUE is right; Undid revision 194970291 by Apostle12 (talk)) (undo)
(cur) (last) 20:43, 29 February 2008 Apostle12 (Talk | contribs) (105,440 bytes) (rv. Nonsense, mere mention of the dissenters and their professional standing, in an article ABOUT THE DISSSENTERS is hardly "undue.") (undo)
(cur) (last) 20:30, 29 February 2008 Dchall1 (Talk | contribs) (105,394 bytes) (Undid revision 194967174 by Apostle12 (talk) - rv per WP:UNDUE) (undo)
(cur) (last) 20:29, 29 February 2008 Apostle12 (Talk | contribs) (105,440 bytes) (At least mention dissenters in line with actual source, which refers to the dissenters as "outsiders"--quite a loaded term if you ask me) (undo)
(cur) (last) 19:10, 29 February 2008 Haemo (Talk | contribs) (105,394 bytes) (no reliable source to support this; no good argument for keeping made on talk) (undo)
(cur) (last) 15:39, 29 February 2008 Rx StrangeLove (Talk | contribs) (105,556 bytes) (patriotsquestion is not a reliable source and cannot be used to ref either the number of people involved or their real life qualifications.) (undo)
(cur) (last) 15:36, 29 February 2008 Arthur Rubin (Talk | contribs) (105,668 bytes) (Tag statement for relevant discussion, I still think it shouldn't be in the lead, but let's at least note the dispute.) (undo)
(cur) (last) 13:54, 29 February 2008 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs) (105,637 bytes) (see talk page section Undid revision 194814236 by Arthur Rubin (talk)) (undo)
(cur) (last) 03:57, 29 February 2008 Edkollin (Talk | contribs) (105,392 bytes) (Mineta Testomony/Cheney Order Conspiracy theorist interpretation Added cite) (undo)
(cur) (last) 03:06, 29 February 2008 Apostle12 (Talk | contribs) (105,244 bytes) (→Supporting conspiracy theories) (undo)

The phrase "is generally accepted by the community" is sourced to a source which has a viewpoint that is ascribed to the entire community. There is a COI here, and I propose we should only use neutral, independent sources, not engaged in the debate themselves, to source blanket statements like this. So the possibilities that were tried and reverted, were:

Counter the claim with the claim of 330 experts - failed on WP:V
remove the entire claim
attribute the claim to the authors
....?

So, what do we do next?  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 08:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

What's the conflict of interest? Why can't we use this reliable source? Your requirement for sourcing is impossible to meet, and at odds with our policies. Do you claim they are wrong in their assessment? If so, find a source disputing their claim, or drop the issue — reliable sources are reliable sources, even when you don't like what they say, or claim they are biased and wrong. --Haemo (talk) 08:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Your demand to find an opposing RS sounds reasonable to me, and I know none, not being well-read on this.  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 09:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources are not equally reliable for evrything they say. Why do you think your source is actually reliable for this specific claim?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 08:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The COI is, that for any professor it would be appealing to say that the vast majority of scientists agrees with him. It's like the Truth movement polling people themselves, in stead of using a specialised institute like Zogby.  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 09:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:COI only applies to editors.
If we were to follow your advice, there would be nothing in this article. Although that might be an improvement, there is very little not said only by the subjects themselves.
Qualifiers are only needed if the matter is in dispute in WP:RS. Is there any WP:RS which states that the mainstream theory isn't generally accepted, even by engineers in relevant subjects?
Replying to Pokipsy76's point, I agree that not all "reliable sources" are reliable for everything they say. I've argued against inclusion of "background" material in reputable news sources, for instance, as those aren't checked as well. I don't see any reason to believe that that applies to this particular source, though.
— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Note the parenthesized text in the source. It indicates a definite interest on the part of the author(s) to bolster their position in the face of challenges from "laymen". This can easily be construed to indicate COI. Pokipsy76's point brought me around. In my opinion, citing the authors of a paper on Progressive Collapse about the acceptance of the failure scenario among their community is tenuous:

The paper is not about who accepts what theory.
The authors have provided no evidence to support the claim about acceptance.
The text implicitly admits a good reason for its authors to suggest that the failure scenario is generally accepted - namely that it has been challenged by "laymen" (which either does or does not include Dr. Steven Jones, and in either case, the text indicates a bias). Dscotese (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I will ask the next 2 authors to dicuss here: /Xiutwel  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 15:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

(cur) (last) 09:23, 2 March 2008 Arthur Rubin (Talk | contribs) (105,738 bytes) (I quite agree; we don't need the qualifier. Undid revision 195291351 by Wowest (talk)) (undo)
(cur) (last) 09:01, 2 March 2008 Wowest (Talk | contribs) (105,790 bytes) (Undid revision 195278575 by Rx StrangeLove (talk)Of course you need it.. Else, exactly how many support the OCT????) (undo)

RxS said "Especially when there's no way to verify whether that number contains real engineers and architects. patriotsquestion is not a reliable source and cannot be used to ref either the number of people involved or their real life qualifications." This is complete nonsense. First of all it is very easy to verify. All you have to do is take any one or two of the people on the membership lists and phone them up. It is easier than going to a public library. In any case these membership lists contain the names of real people, and a lot of them, many of them with money behind them. It would be inconceivable if the lists were bogus that not one of those people would have threatened to sue for libel. Therefore the two organisations mentioned are indeed reliable sources. ireneshusband (talk) 09:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Not sure your logic is on solid ground there. "Phoning them up" is fine, but we can't make it a reliable source just on our say so (or on the say so of the members themselves). And there's no way to tell if all of the members are what they claim anyway...in any case your claims that they are RS are based on rhetoric only. There's lot's of ways you can game that system both ways, it's not our job to play detective to see if they are who they say there are. RxS (talk) 17:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't be so absurd! If someone says they are a licensed architect in the yellow pages, then you can be sure that that is what they are because if they were lying they would end up in serious trouble. If your not happy with that you can find out what you need to know from their professional association. ireneshusband (talk) 17:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Why would they end up in serious trouble? And in any event: Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist, whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nature, should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then with caution. and Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves They are certainly extremest with a poor reputation for fact checking, not to mention the personal opinion bit. This article isn't about them so they really don't have a place here. RxS (talk) 19:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Not all 911 conspiracy websites are extremist. Many sites fact checking puts most RS to shame.

Opinion noun: a message expressing a belief about something; the expression of a belief that is held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof

Many of what you call opinions are actually backed by as much proof as the opposing views yet we allow them. The double standards applied to 911 research dissapoints me. Wayne (talk) 05:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should get the guidelines and policies changed, then. --Haemo (talk) 05:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Arguing about the wrong source.

We're having this discussion about what is clearly the wrong source. There are apparently some minor problems with patriotsquestion, with which some editors are attempting to "poison the well."

There is, however, a better source for architects and engineers:

http://www.ae911truth.org/

This website verifies the credentials of its 286 architectural and engineering members (and verifies other details about its 1083 other supporters). That's less than 330, but quite adequate, compared to the three engineers who have publicly supported the Bush regime's claims and the 300,000 others who haven't cared about it all enough to express any public opinion either way. All of these people are named, with locations given. You can look a lot of them up in the telephone directory and ask them. Since the website has been forced into verifying the identity of its members by right-wing vandalism, it is clearly a reliable source in that regard. Thank you, vandals. Wowest (talk) 10:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Read our policies. This is equally unacceptable for basically the same reasons — "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". This is none of those. --Haemo (talk) 22:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

9/11 truth movement sites are not reliable sources. They are conspiracy theorist websites. How on earth could you make such a claim? Some of them actually claim that Jews are serpentine extraterrestrials. [50] See the article on David Icke. And you're actually going to cite one of them as a source? And say we can verify it because we can stalk them, in real-life?

Wowest: Please, stop what you're doing. You are harming Wikipedia and violating policy. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I am doing none of the above, gentlemen. Starting with (1) Haemo, "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". In fact, that is exactly what ae911truth.org is, if creating a website is publishing, and that is generally accepted here. Everything stated on the site is stated by a qualified professional. The only question here is how many engineers and architects does this site document as supporting the basic point of this site -- that a new 9/11 investigation is called for. It is generally accepted that "9/11 conspiracy sites" are a valid source of information on the 9/11 Truth Movement: not the accuracy of what they say, but what they say and, as far as they identify themselves, who they are.

Now, for the anonymous poster -- (1) David Icke is obviously not representative of the 9/11 truth movement and (2) although I have seen a video of him describing "shape shifting reptiles" controlling things, I have seen nothing of his alleging that these hallucinations of his are Jewish. I honestly don't know whether he does that or not. Claiming that his notions are representative of 9/11 Truth is simply libelous, and then using that alleged relationship to attack the 9/11 truth movement is either malicious or incompetent. Since we assume good faith here, I'll have to assume incompetence. Then we have this OR assumption that there is something inherently wrong with websites you call "conspiracy theorist websites." You people (supporters of the Official Conspiracy Theory) talk out of both sides of your mouth around here. If calling something a "conspiracy theorist website" invalidates it, then the term "conspiracy theory" is defamatory, and the article should be renamed to "alternative theories," or something of that sort. Now, on to

Zenwhat -- I am doing neither of the above. There is no policy here prohibiting telling the simple truth, and I see no way that could harm Wikipedia. How old are you, anyway? You sound young. I'm sixty and I have a B.A. What do you have to do with zen? Sounds like nothing, no offense intended. The truth about 9/11 is that we do not know the truth about 9/11 and that, as citizens, we have a right to know.

We all had a rather horrible experience watching people jump out of buildings on 9/11 to avoid the pain of burning to death. At least, I did. It was shocking. In that state, we were quite vulnerable to suggestion, and suggestion followed. I actually bought into it for several years. We were told that nineteen identified hijackers did it, basically all by themselves. We were told that Osama bin Laden was responsible. I believed all that crap. But, some of the people identified as hijackers turned up alive and objected to the accusation. Meanwhile, Osama was interviewed and denied having anything to do with it. Then his obituary was printed in several Arabic newspapers, along with an account of his funeral. He reportedly died from a lung infection fleeing from Tora Bora. Then, all kinds of unverifiable "Osama" videos came out. The U.S. government kept claiming they were real, while foreign sources, such as a computer voice analysis firm in Switzerland, stated that they were fake. The "fat bin Laden" video was an obvious fake. Once you figured that out, they tried other actors, still with the problem of getting the beard color right. Finally, the last fake bin Laden "dyed his beard black."

The same thing happened on August 31, 1939: the Gleiwitz incident and Operation Himmler. The next morning, 3,000 German tanks rolled into Poland in response to the alleged "state sponsored terrorism." It was actually Nazis attacking their own country and blaming Poland. It's called a "false flag operation," but Hitler said that Poland attacked Germany, and nobody told the German people anything else. This didn't come out until the war crimes trials after the war. If you can't learn from history, you are doomed to repeat it. If nineteen hijackers did 9/11 (which has not been definitively proven), I don't believe they did it without help. I don't think there were 19 "Muslims" involved at all. There were a few, but we don't know how many, what they did, exactly, or why. Even the 9/11 Commission told us that one problem was that the FBI did not talk to the CIA, but after 9/11, the FBI supervisor who prevented the FBI from talking to the CIA was promoted, not fired.

You want physical evidence? Try tons of molten "steel" observed and photographed under all there buildings weeks after 9/11. Where did the heat come from to melt the "steel?" I put "steel" in quotes, since it was originally assumed it was from melted structural steel, but a chemical analysis of the residue indicates a mixture of iron, aluminum, sulfur and potassium, among other things. No chromium. Not structural steel. Probably thermite or Thermate residue, and there is no record or evidence of any legitimate use of those materials at the WTC site, ever.

There is no "theory" about 9/11 that is not a conspiracy theory, including the official one. The Bush regime would have you believe that nineteen hijackers conspired to violate the laws of the Sovereign States of New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, New Jersey and of the United States. That's a conspiracy. The only differences between that theory and the ones you are attacking here is the number of conspirators involved and the specific roles of each.

Incompetence I do not have an easy cure for. I'm not a psychiatrist, but the basic cause here seems to be a kind of fear, or being young, or having ancestors who were killed by their own government. It's very common, and the first casualty is objective observation. There is nothing inherently wrong with feeling fear. Another result of fear is anger. Fear based upon people jumping out of windows is not entirely irrational. People did jump out of windows. Anger based upon accusations of committing an obvious crime is not unusual. Lynch mobs used to do that a lot, and a lot of innocent people were lynched for crimes someone else committed. This long after the event, though, there isn't much of an excuse left for continuing the lynch mob mentality. If you can't help the emotions, check with a psychiatrist. I see a nice Israeli doctor, personally, and she gives me some simple anti-depressants, and that keeps me from getting depressed enough to kill myself. I highly recommend that approach. You want to call me crazy? I don't care. I'm not crazy enough to stop the medication, and the psychiatrist says I'm not paranoid. Just depressed.

I am aware that some of you people work for Homeland Security because some of those who do have admitted it. This "conspiracy theory" meme, originated in the 1960's, has worked very well for you and your predecessors. Some people are afraid that other people will think they are crazy if they believe in anything you label a "conspiracy theory," an "outrageous conspiracy theory," or a "paranoid conspiracy theory," so they won't look at the evidence. I bought into that for years, regarding JFK. I didn't get into it until the deathbed confessions started coming out -- always on the internet, and never on the network news, of course. Good job. Operation Mockingbird is working very well. Since you're being paid to lie, there is no point in arguing with you, but for the other mistaken patriots, all I can say is LOOK at the EVIDENCE!!! Who cares if some barefaced liar claims you're mentally ill? That's just crazy. How can asking questions make you a "wingnut?" All these people have is name-calling and censorship. We are not supposed to have censorship on Wikipedia, but here it is! Remember "sticks and stones?" One hundred million Americans question the official conspiracy theory (and the can't "break all of our bones") , so they censor that information. They don't want poll results in the lede. You, personally, know, however. Is thirty six percent of the country "crazy?" If you don't know where to look, start with http://www.ae911truth.org/ and look at the free Powerpoint presentation or the DVD. And don't bother with David Icke. He isn't a reliable source on anything except, maybe, what David Icke thinks. If I'm wrong about that, I might get eaten by a giant lizard, but I'm willing to take that chance. If I'm wrong about what happened or did not happen on 9/11, then nothing in particular is going to happen, except that my friend, Jim, is going to get to say "I told you so," and call me a "horse's ass." However, if I'm right about what happened on 9/11, we all need to do something to vote a few crooks out of office and to make sure that our elections are honest, hereafter. I'm only responding to what you gentlemen have said, but this is starting to sound like a SOAPBOX, and I'm going to stop typing completely now.

Wowest (talk) 12:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a lot of words, but none of them address the "third party" or "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" — as I've pointed out, this is neither. It's nice to know you still think we're CIA spooks, though. --Haemo (talk) 20:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Philip Shenon,s THE COMMISSION

This new book by the New York Times reporter Philip Shenon contains nunerous instances of the Bush Administration ignoring warnings of attacks. For example, (page 152)"Richard Clarke's e-mails showed that he had bombarded Rice with messages about terrorist threats."

weasel words and unjustified generalisations

I have noticed some weasel words in this article. I am sure there are many more to be found if I look harder. There are also some unjustified generalisations. For example: In 9/11 conspiracy theories#Criticism is a sentence which starts "Proponents of these theories have attacked..." However it is not true that all proponents of "these theories" have done so. "Proponents" in this case could be read both as"the proponents" and as "some proponents." This should be corrected. However this would still leave the problem that "some" has not been more clearly quantified. Moreover the only reference to support this claim is an article by Christopher Bollyn. If a claim has any traction then it will certainly either be supported by more than one source or supported by a source who can reasonably be thought to speak for a larger group.

Stuff like this either needs to be corrected or removed. I think we should allow a reasonable amount of time for stuff like this to be improved and then we should have a clear-out of what remains. ireneshusband (talk) 08:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I "think" you are "reading" a bit "too much" into what the "article" says. I don't see any weasel words in the section cited. Nothing needs to be removed and I strongly suggest that anyone revert any mass-removals of content from the section, if you or anyone else does this in the future.

Also, as I mentioned on Talk:9/11. For anyone who is interested in documenting the conspiracy theorist POV, I suggest editing the wiki at ConspiracyResearch.org. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 22:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Please help fix this quotation

Haemo reverted my edit of the following at the beginning of the second paragraph instead of just fixing it. Can any one make it more appealing to him? As of December 10, 2006, "according to a July ('06) poll conducted by Scripps News Service, one-third of Americans think the government either carried out the 9/11 attacks or intentionally allowed them to happen in order to provide a pretext for war in the Middle East... These theories [are] propounded by the so-called 9/11 Truth Movement..."^[5] Dscotese (talk) 06:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You're misquoting the source. "These theories" in the second half refer to "alternative theories of 9/11" — not to the opinions studied in the poll in in the first half of the quote. I reverted, because I don't know what you're trying to say here. --Haemo (talk) 06:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I reverted a second attempt to include this poll in the lead. There have been several polls on this topic. I see no reason that this specific poll merits placement so prominently within the article. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You actually reverted 3X in 45 minutes. However, I agree the lead is not the place. Poll results should be prominent in the body because it is typical of the support CT's have and allows the reader to determine for himself if views are fringe instead of being told by POV pushers. Wayne (talk) 11:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW....heres another RS that quotes that poll[51] which justifies it's inclusion. Wayne (talk) 12:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Bazant

Should the article mention that Bazants paper on the collapse was submitted for peer review on September 13 2001? I think it might be relevant as it goes to reliability. Wayne (talk) 12:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Split infinitive

Quoting from "current views" in split infinitive we find:

Splitting infinitives with negations remains an area of contention:
I want to not see you anymore. I soon learned to not provoke her.
Even those who are generally tolerant of split infinitives may draw the line at these. This appears to be because the traditional idiom, placing the negation before the marker (I soon learned not to provoke her) or with verbs of desire, negating the finite verb (I don't want to see you anymore) remains easy and natural, and is still overwhelmingly the more common construction, even if some might argue that there are circumstances where it carries a slightly different meaning.

It is unencyclopedic to use language even Raymond Chandler attributes to the "barroom" over more appropriate and traditional language which is normally found in scholarly sources.

Wowest (talk) 06:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I screwed up, however, edit summaries like this one[52] are not helpful. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your gracious apology, and I apologize for using language which might be read as indicating that you or whoever split that infinitive in the first place might be personally incompetent. I've already been chastised by someone who thought I was making a personal attack on one of you. I'll admit that I was annoyed by what looked like a knee-jerk, tag-team revision, made without even reading the previous edit summary. Wowest (talk) 07:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever understood what is wrong with split infinitives. It means the same thing, split or un-split. Personally, it sounds better to me to say "order to not shoot down the plane", but I won't change it. It's bad enough that there was a mini-edit-war over it already... --clpo13_(talk) 07:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read the article. It's been a source of arguments for years.

I was taught in school not to do it. It doesn't translate well into other languages. There is a whole tradition of not doing it, and in simple negations, it strikes most people as improper. For me, it just grates on my nerves, although there are strange sentences (quoted in the article) in which most people would say it is acceptable.

Wowest (talk) 07:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I did read the article, which was, thankfully, much more helpful than the last time I encountered a split infinitive and was directed to the article. It still seems like an odd contention, but that's probably because I was never told about split infinitives during my schooling. --clpo13_(talk) 07:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Languages are stranger than we are raised to believe. I studied a very little Russian in high school, and on a previous job, a Russian lady asked me, in Russian, if I had any children. I replied that I had one son and one daughter. However, I used the same adjective -- one -- for both, and she winced. In Russian, an adjective must agree in gender with the noun it modifies, so odiyn for a son, but odna for a daughter. Of course, she knew what I met, but it just grated on her that I said it that way. Wowest (talk) 08:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL

Then, along comes Arthur Rubin and reverts, first, to the split infinitive, again, and then to:

"It has been suggested that the orders spoken of must have been 
  an order to decline to shoot down the plane"

...

I'm going to let someone else change this, but (1) it looks like "been" should be replaced by "included," to get rid of the singular/ plural identity problem, and (2) "decline" sounds like not-quite-the-right-word there. I think it's a pointless change, but if made, "decline" sounds like a refusal to obey an order, rather than perhaps "to avoid shooting." "Avoid" isn't quite the right word either, but I don't have time for this right now. Wowest (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

deny, forbid? -- it's speculation when it is not sourced, it had better stay as it was. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute)

Attribute the suggestion to a reliable source.
Quote the source.

Problem solved. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 13:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Notable proponents

I propose that we merge the notable proponents into the parts of the article that they support. Right now, it seems out of place in the section where it's in. The article would be better served by discussing the proponents of particular theories along with those theories — rather than making a big list of them in one part of the article. --Haemo (talk) 05:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that suggestion would help - particularly in attributing statements to sources, e.g. "It has been suggested that the orders..." (suggested by who?) Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 13:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Text removed from article

In his book "The Grand Chessboard" (1997), geostrategist Zbigniew Brzezinski, National Security Advisor in the Carter Administration, sets out to formulate "a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy... it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America." "As America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat."

I believe that - in the absence of a reliable source making a connection - this text is completely irrelevant to this article. It might be relevant to Pax Americana, but that's another question. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 19:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

^ http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/1551.htm
^ Global Hawk Makes Historic First Unmanned Flight To Australia Spacedaily April 24, 2001
^ Odigo says workers were warned of attack Haaretz September 26 2001
^ dictionary.com
^ "The 9/11 Truth Movement's Dangers". 12/10/2006. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[memritv-1] ttp://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/1551.htm

[2] Global Hawk Makes Historic First Unmanned Flight To Australia Spacedaily April 24, 2001

[3] Odigo says workers were warned of attack Haaretz September 26 2001

[4] tionary.com

[5] "The 9/11 Truth Movement's Dangers". 12/10/2006. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]