Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories/Archive 26

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27

Left-handed or right-handed

An editor continues to add the following passage: "In the tape said to be found in December 2001 in Afghanistan[1], Osama happens to use his right hand in taking notes while the FBI, which does not indict him for 9/11 attacks in its website, states that he is left handed".[2] This passage violates WP:SYN: we cannot combine information from different sources to create doubt not found in the original sources. TFD (talk) 16:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Link to edit under discussion. Yeah, the first part is original synthesis, the second part is sourced to a blog that states that the production of the video has not been officially confirmed, and the third part is unsourced. I have accordingly reverted. There is a good chance that there is more to say regarding Operation Northwoods, but without a source the See also link is at least as much as we can say about that. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Reptilian shape-shifting aliens

Prezbo (talk · contribs) has been removing the section. I see no guideline-compliant reason for the removal, and I recall a previous consensus for inclusion, but I've used up (more than) my 3RR count in removing other clearly unsubstantiated edits, not all of which were BLP violations. I think I need to stop reverting absurd edits of this article for at least another 6 hours. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I think my reason for removing was clearly explained: David Icke blames everything on reptilian aliens, and believes every conspiracy theory is true, so the fact that he blames 9/11 on reptilian aliens doesn't really say anything about 9/11 conspiracy theories in general. You could have a section like this in every article about a conspiracy theory. Icke is a prominent conspiracy theorist, but not so much so that we need to record his lizard-centric take on every subject. Notice that the references are articles about David Icke, not about 9/11 conspiracy theories--that suggests that Icke's opinion isn't particularly notable in the context of 9/11 conspiracy theories. I'm sorry if this is a perennial argument.Prezbo (talk) 08:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
And other people blames everything on George W Bush, and some people blames everything on CIA. This is a normal feature of conspiracy theories. In fact the whole point of conspiracy theories is that there is a conspiracy that secretly rules everything and is behind all evil things. Icke is no different from most conspiracy theories in this. His just happen to have aliens in it.
We know Icke is a prominent conspiracy theories with a large following. His opinion is notable. What we need is a source that verifies that he claims the reptilians are behind 9/11. As this is an opinion, one of his books would be OK as source. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Some conspiracy theorists believe "there is a conspiracy that secretly rules everything and is behind all evil things," others focus their research on one topic, like 9/11, and don't try to create a grand unified theory. Most of the conspiracy theorists this article mentions by name (Thierry Meyssan, David Ray Griffin, Steven E. Jones, Dylan Avery) are in the latter group. I think if someone is just a general conspiracy theorist without a particular focus on 9/11, and their views aren't respected by Truthers, it doesn't make sense to devote a section to them.Prezbo (talk) 08:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
BTW I also think that if Leonard G. Horowitz's theories haven't received any mainstream media coverage, then they aren't notable and shouldn't be mentioned.Prezbo (talk) 08:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, Thierry Meyssan also accuses CIA of various things, and hence his conspiracy theory is not only about 9/11. Other people mentioned who are "generalist" conspiracy theorists are Bröckers, Bülow, Reynolds, Shayler and of course Alex Jones. And the theory of Jewish involvement is another all-encompassing theory, should it be removed to?
9/11 theorists also have the benefit of being able to hide behind pseudo-science, do discussion is often about technical things. But when the question arises of *why* then there is often generalist ideas behind that. But you won't see that on a site dedicated at the collapse of WTC7 for example. That a theory is general is no reason to exclude it from this article. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Apart from Alex Jones all of those people are primarily or significantly focused on 9/11. Jewish/Israeli conspiracy theories have a lot of exponents and adherents and cross over with other 9/11 conspiracy theories to some extent, while the reptilian thing is limited to Icke and his followers. Even if he has a lot of followers I think it makes more sense to just record his views in his own article rather than mentioning him everywhere. I'm sure someone could track down Icke's views on the JFK assassination, the moon landing, chemtrails, etc.; Do you think he should be mentioned in every conspiracy article? If not, what's special about this one?Prezbo (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Icke has written a book specifically about 911, while he did not write a book on chemtrails, JFK etc. Since he is one of the most profilic conspiracy theorist and has written a book focussed on the topic, inclusion in the article seems warranted, no matter how absurd. (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
That's a fair point I guess, which of his books was about 9/11?Prezbo (talk) 17:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
It's "Alice in Wonderland and the World Trade Center Disaster". (talk) 18:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
All of this is "no matter how absurd". The popular controlled demolition theories requires an army of invisible demolition engineers prepping buildings with invisible demolition equipment. That's hardly less absurd than shape-shifting aliens. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I do not see why a prominent conspiracy theorists view on a conspiracy should be excluded from a conspiracy article if it can be reliable sourced. It seems to me that this is in fact the whole purpose of the conspiracy articles: To mention prominent conspiracy theories about a topic. That Icke has his own article is hardly an argument, so does the guys you mention. And that it's a general theory is no argument either, as seen above. That he isn't focused on 9/11 seems a strange argument. How large percentage on ones conspiracy theories need to be about other things 9/11 before you get removed from the article? Who judges that? even if you get consensus that you need to spend X percent of your "focus" on 9/11, can you reliably source that David Icke spends less than X percent of his "focus" on 9/11? --OpenFuture (talk) 18:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Since this area of study isn't an exact science, I guess you would need to use qualitative judgment and common sense. It seems absurd to me to mention David Icke's views everywhere that he's expressed an opinion on the topic, but if you don't see anything weird about that I don't have any chance of convincing you.Prezbo (talk) 18:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Mainstream Account Section

Can we remove the Mainstream account section of this article? It has nothing to do with 9/11 conspiracy theories.Rolyatleahcim (talk) 17:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. TFD (talk) 17:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose The section is there for background. It is supposed to describe the account of events being contested by 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Edkollin (talk) 04:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
That is not true. The 911 conspiracy theories may have been developed had there been no official version. TFD (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Official versions change for all sorts reasons. I don't see why that would be a reason to scrap the whole thing. And yes the section was stated by me 4 or so years ago with the idea provide background for the reader of what was being contested. That CT's probably would have developed if the government and mainstream media came up with no account of the attacks is irrelevant. These theories have been developed to contest the explanations of the government and mainstream media. Do you have a problem with the idea of a background section at all or this one?. If it is the second obliviously the section is a different one then the one 4 years and I don't like several things about it myself. Edkollin (talk) 14:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Please consider, Edkollin, that a link to the main article on 9/11 may be included for the purposes of providing background.
Good call, we may want to have a "past mainstream account" section, being that his allegations (now dis-proven) would qualify as a conspiracy theory.Rolyatleahcim (talk) 02:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Doing that would be us deciding that past "official accounts" are conspiracy theories, that is original research. Edkollin (talk) 14:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I think that having a small paragraph summarizing the 9/11 terrorist attacks article is fine. Right now, we have three paragraphs. If it were up to me, I think we should delete the second paragraph and possibly the third. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. We don't need to list every pro "official theory" media organization, we just need to say that the 9/11 commission and NIST conclusions have been widely accepted by the media and both political parties. We do need to add the NIST conclusions as to why the buildings collapsed since the Controlled demolition theory is the main conspiracy theory. Edkollin (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Edkollin I am sure we can find some sources that state the facts that the official story has changed, or past official stories are no longer held to be correct.Rolyatleahcim (talk) 04:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
A little off topic but I prefer something along the lines of "Government and Media Consensus Account". "Official story" implies that there is a "real story" and mainstream is vague. Edkollin (talk) 21:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Rolyatleahcim: Well, yes. And? When new facts arises, the consensus account (good name) will indeed change. That in fact is one of the basic differences between a consensus account and a conspiracy theory, as conspiracy theories in general tend to ignore new facts that contradict the theory. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
When new consensus emerges, it should be emended to the main 9/11 article rather than on this one dealing with conspiracies. Rolyatleahcim (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Addition of Operation Northwoods / OR

GoN has added the following to the subsection "Suggested historical Precedents":

"Operation Northwoods was a false flag plan presented by the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff in 1962. The plan called for covert operatives to commit genuine acts of terrorism in U.S. cities, and to blame and subsequently invade Cuba for it.[167]"

The reference given only informs on Operation Northwoods, but makes no connection to 911 at all. This is not enough to warrant inclusion. If there is no reference showing how conspiracy theorists understand Northwoods as a precedent, it would be wikipedia making that connection, a violation of WP: Synth. I know conspiracy theorists have made the connection, so a reference making the connection should be possible to find. Furthermore, the above should be reworded to show it is conspiracy theorists who see it as a precedent, not Wikipedia. (talk) 12:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

These don't look like a WP:RS, but is this what your looking for? and Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Here's another one: Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Are you demanding a reliable source that links Northwoods to 9/11? That might be impossible for theories that are outside the mainstream. Or are you saying that even if Northwoods is reliably sourced, in addition it must be linked to 9/11 by a conspiracy source? How do we include a non-reliable source into the article? Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
If we have "the government considered fake terrorist attacks in 1962" reliably sourced, and earlier in the article we have "some 9/11 conspiracy theorists consider the 9/11 attacks to be attacks faked by the government" do we have to spell out "Northwoods and 9/11 are in someway connected"? I'm not sure that is logically correct. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, we do have to spell them out, with a reliable source (in the context of 9/11 conspiracies; it doesn't have to be a real reliable source). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
And we name the sources in the text, making the source reliable for the fact that it claims there's a connection. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, we do. If we do not, then this article is not only reporting about conspiracy theories, but actively making them up. As I said above, we know that there are conspiracy theorists making the connection, but wikipedia has to make it clear that the claim is theirs, wikipedia's. Thus: references. Logic has nothing to do with it, it's the perspective WP has set itself when it chose to be an encyclopedia. (talk) 17:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
So instead of making these corrections, you just deleted it entirely? Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
This article is about 9/11 conspiracy theories. Any text added must be from a story about the theories. TFD (talk) 05:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the media are writing stories about these theories. In the absence of reliable sources, we only have the conspiracy theorists to source this on. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Then we have nothing. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Found one. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Cool.--OpenFuture (talk) 05:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm shocked, actually. 06:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

(out) No, you need a source that says something like, "9/11 truthers point to historical precedents of government conspiracies, like Operation Norwood, that turned out to be true". TFD (talk) 21:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The Existence of Reliable Sources

Though information may be added, only if it is considered to come from a reliable sources, is there actually such a thing as a reliable source in the context of conspiracy theories. Being that conspiracy theories are speculative: I would say no. If there is no such thing as a reliable source in this regards, should we not limit the content of the article to information suggested by mainstream theorist only? Rolyatleahcim (talk) 17:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

In this context reliable sources report the various theories. For example, we do not use Loose Change as a source, but may describe its contents by using reliable sources (in this case eSkeptic). Please see WP:Fringe for guidelines on writing articles about fringe theories. TFD (talk) 17:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Could we say that the forums at are not a reliable source, but their radio show is?Rolyatleahcim (talk) 01:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Neither are. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC).
Compared to Alex Jones... Rolyatleahcim (talk) 17:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Alex Jones isn't reliable, either, except as to his own opinions. However, he is notable, so his opinions may be notable, even if sourced only to him. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
In that case, ATS would be. Thank you.Rolyatleahcim (talk) 04:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
ATS is much less notable than Alex Jones. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
You have heard of it than?Rolyatleahcim (talk) 20:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
If they're the ones who distributed floppy disks with "Top Secret" on the shell, then yes. Otherwise, no. (talk) 00:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
It would seem there is some preference here as to specific mass-media-conspiracy-theorists in regards to sources here.Rolyatleahcim (talk) 21:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
No. ATS cannot be considered reliable at all, neither can Alex Jones, as per WP:RS. But contrary to ATS, Alex Jones is one of the most prominent Conspiracy Theorists and thus is more notable. Imagine, if wikipedia considered ATS to be a source, it would open the floodgate for any fringe website with no fact-checking, no journalistic or scientific value whatsoever, as it would to blogs and other private websites. This would eventually reduce wikipedia's quality by being even more prone to partisan edit-warring. And yes, I'm painting it overtly black here, but you get the point. (talk) 06:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Removal of "The New Pearl Harbor" interview reference

Could you expand a little more on your reason for deleting this reference? What is wrong with using it as a reference to support the referenced line? It's from a news source, it's an interview with the author of the book, and they discuss these allegations. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

It's an interview with the author of the book, and, if it's from a real news source, it can be used to assert that the author believes those theories, and that others (the other person interviewed, for example) do not. It probably cannot be used to support the notability of the view. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Rechecking, Democracy Now! is not a news source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
It seems to be a news source from the wikilink you provided. Why do you say it's not? Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
No evidence of fact-checking. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Got a source on that? Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Have a source that there is evidence of fact-checking? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
From the wikilink to their page above:
"Democracy Now! is an independent syndicated program of news, analysis, and opinion aired by more than 700 radio, television, satellite and cable TV networks in North America."
"Democracy Now! was founded in 1996 at WBAI-FM in New York City by journalists Amy Goodman, Juan Gonzalez, Larry Bensky, Salim Muwakkil, and Julie Drizin."
"Democracy Now! and its staff have received several journalism awards, including the Pinnacle Award for American Women in Radio & Television; the George Polk Award for its 1998 radio documentary Drilling and Killing: Chevron and Nigeria's Oil Dictatorship, on the Chevron Corporation and the deaths of two Nigerian villagers protesting an oil spill; and Goodman with Allan Nairn won Robert F. Kennedy Memorial's First Prize in International Radio for their 1993 report, Massacre: The Story of East Timor which involved first-hand coverage of genocide during the Indonesian occupation of East Timor." Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Still no real evidence of fact-checking, only that they appear to have gotten those stories correct. All I can say for sure is that KPFK and KPFA (the founding station of the Pacifica Radio Network, the primary broadcast medium for Democracy Now!) on the West Coast have no reputation for fact-checking, even in the progressive community. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

My point is that they seem to be professional journalists, even of some distinction. You're setting the bar unreasonably high I think. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
All I can see is that some of their stories are award-winning, and they have interviewed some big-name progressives. But perhaps WP:RSN is the appropriate venue, as no one else has commented here, yet. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
It was brought to RSN once before.[3] While there was little response, similar news organizations have been accepted at RSN. Also, it is an interview. An interview in fringe media (e.g., Alex Jones) would also be a reliable source. My objection is that it is a primary source - a conspiracist discussing his views rather than a journalist discussing them. TFD (talk) 18:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I apologize for acting against a previous consensus, but it's still an RSN question, is it not? (Hasn't Alex been known to re-edit his material to create predictions. I'm not sure one of his interviews would be reliable....) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
You may bring it up again, but I do not think you could get a consensus that it is not RS. You may wish to read up on DN before listing it, since if you can provide reasons from RS that DN is not reliable, you are more likely to succeed. You must be thinking of Jones "prediction" of 9/11. The criticism was not that he had doctored his comments, but that they did not amount to a prediction of 9/11. By the way, news media edit interviews, which is why we should use transcripts rather than youtube links. TFD (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories about the Commission

Should conspiracy theories about the Commission be included, such as that the Commission was selected for conflicts of interest, or that they were prohibited from studying certain aspects of the attack? I would say yes, and that, even if we cannot provide specifics in this article, those who promote such theories should be listed at {{911ct}}. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

This is emerging from the objections I made at Template talk:911ct over the Jersey Girls and related articles being included in that template. I don't care where this is discussed but my concern is with those specific articles. So, first of all, it should be noted that the Jersey Girls article doesn't say that they believe the Commission was prevented from studying certain aspects of the attacks. It says that they believed Zelikow had a conflict of interest and that they were dissatisfied with the final report, but doesn't really explain why. I think it's absurd to say that accusing someone of having a conflict of interest makes you a conspiracy theorist. I think 9/11 conspiracy theories are just what this article says they are: the idea that the government committed the attacks or deliberately failed to prevent them. My guess is that that understanding is pretty widely shared, so if Wikipedia labels someone who doesn't believe that as a 9/11 conspiracy theorist it's misleading readers in a serious way.Prezbo (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I should have given context, but the question is relevant for what should be in this article, as well. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Same as the above discussion. Reliable sources saying 9/11 conspiracy theorists are using this to prove there was a 9/11 conspiracy by people not called Al Quaeda. I would not have a problem with RS saying CT's are citing this as part of a suspicious pattern. Edkollin (talk) 18:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
This would seem to be something that could be accommodated under the cover-up section. Obviously all conspiracy theories concerning the Commission are that it was essentially used to maintain or execute a cover-up.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

It depends. Many serious people have criticised the scope of the official investigation. Gerald Posner and Christopher Hitchens have both accused the commission of deliberately ignoring a credible Pakistan ISI funding connection. Hitchens also spoke of "an unwillingness on the part of the president to name the two countries that really were behind Al Qaeda: the Saudi Arabian oligarchy and the Pakistani secret police." — Wikispan (talk) 18:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

If there are sources stating that 9/11 conspiracy theorists claim this then it is fine. However, claims that the members were chosen for their sympathy to the government or that they muted criticism of the government do not belong in the article unless they are connected with people supporting the conspiracy theories. It is typical of conspiracy theorists to bolster their views using mainstream scepticism and we should report where they have done this. But we should not promote conspiracy theories by reporting this scepticism when it is not explicitly tied to the theories. TFD (talk) 19:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Conspiracy theory is a description of a theory that involves a conspiracy that has the power to keep its actions secret not by evading authorities, but by being directed or somehow linked to authorities. Allegations of authorities covering up evidence therefore may be described as an integral part of a conspiracy theory. Materially, such allegations therefore fall within the scope of this article. The term "Conspiracy theory" has "become largely pejorative", as the Wikipedia article correctly says, and I would therefore suggest to change that term to a neutral description. But what we are discussing here is not whether the title of the article is the best way to describe its content, but what the scope of the article is. This scope must be determined by a survey of how reliable sources aggregate the information, and it's quite obvious that the large majority of reliable source do associate the different allegation put forward against the 9/11 commission with the other content of this article.  Cs32en Talk to me  22:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Is the "Conspiracy" about protection the reputation of the Bush Administration from allegations of incompetence or allegations they were involved in a 9/11 conspiracy?. The allegations I have seem are unclear about this. The definitional that "conspiracy that has the power to keep its actions secret not by evading authorities, but by being directed or somehow linked to authorities" and that by by "covering up evidence therefore may be described as an integral part of a conspiracy theory." is a general definitional for conspiracy theories but not the popular and consensus definition of "9/11 conspiracy theories". If the the alleged cover up was about incompetence it is not a 9/11 conspiracy theory by popular and consensus definition but is considered a refutation of allegations of "9/11 conspiracy theories" by RS consensus definition. That article we incorrectly use to add incompetence as a part of 9/11 CT argues for incompetence and cover up of incompetence as the cause of 9/11 Truth movement not as incompetence as 9/11 a CT. [4] Edkollin (talk) 21:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Huh!? Covering up evidence is an integral part of a conspiracy theory, therefore it's not a conspiracy theory when they cover up evidence!? I don't follow that logic. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
He is saying that covering up evidence is understood to be an integral aspect of conspiracies and that allegations that individuals sympathetic to the government were chosen to carry out the commission report should only be included if they are apart "mainstream" conspiracy theories that could be cited. I for one, believe this is a flawed way to approach, because of course allegations that individuals sympathetic the the government were chosen will be included in some individual's personal theories. I believe it would be more fitting to look at all of the points of interest that may be included in 9/11-centric conspiracism, cite where that information comes from, and attempt to examine the countless reasons why individuals would be willing to believe the information. Rolyatleahcim (talk) 01:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Dishonesty by government does not amount to a conspiracy theory. TFD (talk) 01:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
No, but surely dishonesty by government is an integral aspect conspiracy theories. We should not only include what is thought, but why.Rolyatleahcim (talk) 01:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, choosing sympathetic individuals is not a conspiracy as long as the choosing is done without those who chooses conspiring about it, yes. A lot of things like that happen without any conspiracies being involved. If the people who choose the investigators all want something covered up, a conspiracy is not necessary, because people would be inclined to chose sympathetic people all by themselves. This is no different from there not being a conspiracy to prevent you from getting ice cream on a hot day, because everyone else bought all the ice cream. :-) So even if there is efforts to cover up, that doesn't imply a conspiracy.
But the logic that a conspiracy to cover up shouldn't be included just because all conspiracies will cover up does indeed seem flawed to me. A conspiracy theory about a cover up is still a conspiracy theory. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

You would say than, actual conspiracies must be verbalized by the conspirators? Rolyatleahcim (talk) 16:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

"Verbalized"? People have to actually conspire for it to be a conspiracy. If you mean that they have to talk to each other for that to happen, then yes. Loads of people buying ice cream when it's hot is not a conspiracy to empty the freezers. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Isnt it quite possible that many actual conspiracies are constructed on the biases of understanding of mutual benefit? (Clarity clearly would be best suited in situations where comprehensive understanding would desired.) 01:46, Rolyatleahcim (talk) 04:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Most conspiracies are surely based on the assumption that it will be mutually beneficial. But it is not a conspiracy unless people actually conspire. I really do not understand what is difficult to understand with that. Individuals acting on their own is not a conspiracy, even when they seemingly do things in concert. A conspiracy is a secret agreement between two or more people, to act in ways they otherwise would not have acted in order to obtain a non-public goal. As such, two politicians agreeing to funnel money into their own pockets is a conspiracy. Two company owners agreeing on mutually beneficent business deal is not, and neither are two people buying ice cream at the same store.
I don't really think explanations of what the word "conspiracy" mean is particularly on topic here. Maybe we could take it into some other forum? --OpenFuture (talk) 06:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This is confusing because of inconsistent definitions. 9/11 Conspiracy theories as used by most reliable sources means LIHOP and MIHOP not incompetence. That officials may have covered up incompetence or were just incompetent is a main argument used to refute what are commonly described by reliable sources as 9/11 conspiracy theories. They and other reliable sources were not describing those using the incompetent arguments as 9/11 conspiracy theorists and the incompetent argument has not been described as a 9/11 CT. Pre indictments, the Al Qaeda did it alone theory was technically a conspiracy theory. Repeated attempts to rewrite this article were and are rejected because only "fringe" groups were calling the Al Qaeda did it alone idea a conspiracy theory while reliable sources were describing this as a fact. At this stage minus evidence to the contrary if the cover up of incompetence goes into the article it will be because editors opinions that this is a conspiracy theory and thus it would be original research. Edkollin (talk) 05:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I feel this should be started up again solely because of the title of the article. I do understand the actual definition of "Conspiracy Theory" is:
"A hypothesis alleging that the members of a coordinated group are, and/or were, secretly working together to commit illegal or wrongful actions including attempting to hide the existence of the group and its activities. In notable cases the hypothesis contradicts the mainstream explanation for historical or current events."
but to most people, especially people living in the united states, think of this definition:
"(dismissive) Hypothetical speculation that is untrue or outlandish."
when they hear "Conspiracy Theory" in the same context as 9/11. While some of the theories out there are undoubtedly a stretch of the truth (or more than a stretch) there is enough verifiable information to at least label the foreknowledge as something less crazy in most peoples eyes than conspiracy theory, isn't there? There are plenty of reliable sources referenced in the foreknowledge article that state quite simply that the government wasn't entirely truthful on the events of that day. My main point is fairness, so, I am not recommending that this be labeled with a word that represents it as fact but nor do I want it to be labeled as crazy, is there a median we can all agree on? - Asphyxiate.always (talk) 05:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggested review of source #111

The line from the the wiki page reads:

"The FBI, the Smithsonian, and the National Park Service’s Flight 93 National Memorial have found it to be authentic."

And using source #111:

"Hamill, Sean D. (September 10, 2007). "Picture Made on 9/11 Takes a Toll on Photographer". The New York Times. Retrieved March 30, 2010."

If you go to read the actual NY Times article it states:

"The F.B.I., the Smithsonian Institution — which used the photo in an exhibition on Sept. 11 — and the National Park Service’s Flight 93 National Memorial — which has used the photo in pamphlets — all consider the photo legitimate."

They consider it to be legitimate is not the same as found. Consider does not imply that they did any testing to draw the conclusion that they did. This sounds more like the photo was assumed to be legitimate, and not that they did anything to provide any fact toward that assumption.

The next paragraph reads:

"“We have no reason to doubt it,” said Bill Crowley, an agent who is a spokesman for the Pittsburgh F.B.I. office, which oversaw evidence collection in Shanksville."

This statement no more proves they have done anything to 'find' it authentic than anything else in the NY Times article; if anything at all it helps my hypothesis that the information was assumed. I think that there should be a rewording of the sentence in the Wiki article or at the very least a [citation needed] be placed until a more absolute and solid source for the sentence be located.

Asphyxiate.always (talk) 07:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I see your point, although you are undoubtably a troll or sock puppet. Changed "have found" to "consider". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for changing it but why must I “undoubtedly” but a troll or sock puppet? I tried pretty hard to keep the request as non-biased as possible and just keep the article to the facts that it is suppose to represent from other reliable sources. I thought that it didn't and reported it, what did I do to make you think that? Asphyxiate.always (talk) 08:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Your posts look familiar. However, nothing you've written here shows anything but a respect for the truth, so I apologize. My sock-spotting skills are somewhat lacking, here, as in real life. (I have 6 unpaired socks in the sock drawer.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
It's all good man, although I do have my own ideas of what happened on 9/11 Wikipedia is not the place that I should voice those ideas, especially voice them as fact. The only thing that I plan to bring to attention are problems with sources. I just posted a problem with source #65 and will always try to keep my criticisms neutral and anything I bring to the table will be back by a source, not speculation. I consider what I am doing to be more of an audit of the references used than a criticism of the entire article.. On an entirely separate note, I noticed on your User page that you are a Mathematician, what field is your specialty? I am currently a mathematics student, so that's why I am interested. - Asphyxiate.always (talk) 23:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth petition info from WTC collapse section

OpenFuture removed this from the WTC collapse section, claiming it is irrelevant to that section. "The group Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, an organization of professional architects, engineers, and related professions, is petitioning Congress to reopen the investigation into the causes of the three World Trade Center building collapses.(reference)" That is ridiculous. It's a petition signed by 1114 architecture and engineering professionals to reopen the investigation into the collapse of the three World Trade Center buildings. How is that off topic? Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Since this information is clearly relevant to this article and that section, I'm going to reinsert the removed material pending discussion, and add the number of signatories to further prove its relevance. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
It's not exactly a conspiracy theory, is it? So how is it "clearly relevant"? I find it clearly *irrelevant*. And what does Mojokabobo think of you branding this group as conspiracy theorists? They have their own article too, and they are not the only ones asking for a new investigation. How are they more notable than others? --OpenFuture (talk) 12:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
OpenFuture, please stop trying to speak for me. I am at 100% consensus with absolutely everything that Ghostofnemo has said on this discussion board, and I am at complete odds with your arguments.Mojokabobo (talk) 18:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I have not spoken for you. I asked a question. It is noted that you now find it OK to label conspiracy theorists "conspiracy theorists". That's good. I also note that you now, as Ghostofnemo, renege on our agreement to separate people who question official findings without supporting conspiracy theories from those who do support conspiracy theories. I still think they should be separated, but it's obviously completely up to you to clump these groups together. For this article is probably not relevant, as it's about conspiracy theories. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
They claim there was a conspiracy to cover up what actually happened. They are also trying to bring legal charges against the NIST for falsifying their data. They suggest explosives were possibly used to bring down the buildings. I added a news article as a reference, which has the details. They are more notable because they are architects and engineers. They are experts. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
So you are labelling them as conspiracy theorists then. I'm happy I'm not the only one that thinks this is possible without being degrading. But the quote still is not about any conspiracy. They may think there is a conspiracy, but that's not what the text says. "Is petitioning Congress" and "claim there was a conspiracy to cover up what actually happened" are pretty different statements. The question here is not why their conspiracy theories are relevant (they clearly are) but why they *petition* is relevant and more notable than other demands and petitions about the subject. Please answer that. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
"They are more notable because they are architects and engineers." See my response above. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
But I was asking about the *petition* not the group. OK? *Petition*. Why will you never answer questions? How do you think your suggestions will ever make it in to the article when you refuse to argue for them? --OpenFuture (talk) 09:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
The article 9/11 Truth movement contains a summary of the article on Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Therefore, I don't think we need a summary here. The section already contains a reference to Richard Gage, which is a piped link at the moment. This could be changed into "Richard Gage, who leads the organization Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth" or something similar. This would inform the reader that the group has a specific relevance to this section (this could be sourced, if necessary), and the interested reader can follow the link to the article on the group.  Cs32en Talk to me  14:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
They are notable because of the number signers and who they are but the Controlled Demolition section here is supposed to be a summary. The groups stated belief in the controlled demolition and the petition belong in the reactions section of the Controlled Demolition article. Edkollin (talk) 17:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. It belongs right where it is. Their petition is for a new investigation. As an aside, they suggest the possibility that explosives were involved, but the petition is about the collapse of the three WTC buildings. To respond to Cs32en's concern, the group is specifically concerned with the the collapse of the three WTC buildings. That is the purpose of their group, to investigate the collapse. It's not a summary of an article, it's just a note that this group exists and that they are asking for a new investigation. It belongs in this section. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Whoa, that entire section completely disappeared! Where did it go? Who removed it? What were your reasons? Why no discussion of the removal? Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
It was Arthur Rubin (talk). He claims it gave the group "undue weight", although the news article referenced was about that particular group and their particular petition. He also deleted the rest of the CBS News quote and claimed it was unreferenced. Hello, Arthur! Are you there? Why are you removing referenced, seemingly appropriate material without any discussion? I messed up the link to Arthur Rubin and it went to an article. My mistake! Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I was wrong about it being undue weight. It's merely unsourced, as the Washington Times article references is a political column, rather than news. And the CBS news "quote" is not in the article. I noticed the {{failed verification}} tag, and verified that the tag was correct, before removing the material. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Here is the quote from the CBS article: "Members of the group don't consider themselves extremists. They simply believe the government's investigation was inadequate, and maintain that questioning widely held assumptions has been part of the job of scholars for centuries." Here is the url: The material that was in quotation marks in this Wikipedia article matches the source exactly. You didn't like my paraphrase of the first line? Fine, we'll just use the entire quote exactly as given by the source.
The Washington Times story looks like a news story in the politics section. It doesn't say it's an editorial or opinion piece. It doesn't read like an op-ed either - the author is reporting a story, not giving her personal opinion on the topic. The reference to the A&E for 911 Truth petition page lists the signers AND their credentials, even their license numbers. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Of course you disagree. But can you give some arguments? The article as of now contains no discussion of any petitions, except Van Jones signing one (it doesn't say which). Just googling for "9/11 petition" makes me find seven different petitions, including one from a group of firefighters. They are no mentioned because petitions have nothing to do in this page. This article is about teh conspiracy theories. Not reactions, not the truth movement, but the conspiracy theories. That *and* singling out the petition of AE911T group before petitions of groups such as firefighters is WP:UNDUE. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
From the Washington Times article: "Mr. Gage, who is a member of the American Institute of Architects, managed to persuade more than 1,000 of his peers to sign a new petition requesting a formal inquiry." Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Or are you seriously arguing that a petitioned signed by 1114 architects and engineers calling for a reopening of the investigation into the collapse of the WTC buildings is not worthy of being mentioned in a section about the collapse of the WTC buildings in an article entitled "9/11 conspiracy theories"? You gotta be kidding me. I have to prove that's worthy? I'd say the burden of proof is on you to prove why that is not worthy of inclusion. If that is not worthy of inclusion, what is, more counter arguments and refutations of the theories we are supposed to be presenting? Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I am seriously arguing that petitions doesn't belong in the conspiracy article, as petitions are not conspiracies. I have repeated this several times, and you ignore it. What is it you don't understand? --OpenFuture (talk) 12:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
It is a petition to Congress to hold another investigation, because the first investigation is suspected, by this group of more than 1000 architects and engineers, to be a cover-up (a conspiracy to conceal the true facts). Since they feel the first investigation was bogus, part of a conspiracy by government officials to mislead the public, they want a new, unbiased, objective investigation. That is what the petition is for, to uncover what really happened when the WTC buildings collapsed. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
A petition is not a conspiracy theory and hence not relevant for this article. You know this now, I will not repeat this any more. Stop disrupting. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Eh… it’s much more relevant to this conspiracy theory article than it is to any of the other 9/11 articles. And if you’ve ever heard or read about any of Richard Gage / AE911T’s lectures or PR, you’d know they do take some talking points from the conspiracy theory crowd. (Yeah, I can’t believe I’m actually arguing for inclusion of this stuff myself.…) — TheHerbalGerbil(TALK), 13:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I do not doubt that the AE911T are conspiracy theorists. I do dispute that a *petition* is a form of conspiracy, and hence that the *petition* is relevant for this article. I really don't understand what's unclear with this. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
And the Washington Times "article" looks like an opinion piece to me. Can you determine, from placement in the paper, that it isn't? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
At the top, above "Inside the Beltway" it says "Home>>News>>Politics" It doesn't say "Opinion" or "Editorial" anywhere on the page. News organizations are usually pretty good about clearly labeling editorials and opinion pieces. It reads just like a news article. Most of the article is quotes from other sources. She wrote the lead-in, but it doesn't express her opinion on the topic. The subtitle of the article is "Explosive News" not "Explosive Opinion". Here's that url again: Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I just don't understand how the words "Many mainstream scientists refuse to debate conspiracy theorists, so as to deny them undue credibility" can make it into this article (see the WTC7 section), but then a petition signed by over a thousand architects and engineers can't even be mentioned. That is a blatant violation of neutrality. BTW, please stop mentioning me in your arguments OpenFuture. I am at complete odds with just about everything you have said, and am in complete consensus with GhostofNemo. Mojokabobo (talk) 18:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Because a petition is not a conspiracy theory. This is really not hard to understand. Honestly. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh please! It's a petition asking for an inquiry to uncover a suspected conspiracy. It's a petition to investigate a possible conspiracy. The architects and engineers who signed the petition suspect there was a conspiracy. They want a new investigation because they suspect there was a conspiracy to cover up the truth. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Simply SUSPECTING a "conspiracy" is no proof there IS one, it's often only in the minds of the people CLAIMING it that there is one, and that cannot be considered proof of anything. NO demolition starts at the top of a building, and with the absence of flashes, bangs or noticable fireball explosions, "proof" of a conspiracy goes up in smoke. (And The Original Wildbear, don't go removing other people's edits simply because you disagree with them!)TyVulpine (talk) 23:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

That's not what the petition says, so that is WP:SYN. Also that was not mentioned in the text that was removed. And even if the petition did say that it's still not relevant. A petition is not a conspiracy theory. We already know that the conspiracy theorists think that there is a conspiracy. The page is called "9/11 conspiracy theories". Do you really think the existance of 9/11 conspiracy theories are unclear in that article? --OpenFuture (talk) 11:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I think the fact that 1114 architects and engineers have signed a petition asking for a new investigation is HIGHLY relevant! Why would they request a new investigation if they didn't suspect a cover-up? Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
That's your personal interpretation of their motive, which continues to be irrelevant. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, you're not being reasonable. I feel this material is highly relevant to the article and it is referenced by a mainstream news source, so I'm going to reinsert the material and the references. If they are removed again, I will seek outside assistance through the proper Wikipedia dispute resolution channels. I feel OpenFuture (talk) is engaging in WP:Disruptive editing. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
You refuse to acknowledge problems or give arguments for your position. It's hard to be reasonable when you refuse to reason. The section is about the WTC collapse and conspiracy theories concering it. The petition did not cause the collapse nor it is a conspiracy theory. It also gives undue weight to one of many petitions. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand why 1114 people that claim they are an architect or engineer is relevant in the slightest. There are over 100,000 architects and over a million and a half engineers in the US alone. It's a tiny minority and really not relevant. RxS (talk) 15:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Because 1114 is a larger number than the number that have publicy supported the official theory. The vast majority of those million and a half have not made public comments supporting either position. Wayne (talk) 16:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
No, that doesn't work. It's a tiny number and silence on the part of the vast majority means nothing. They haven't taken a position on energy beams or sea monsters either. You have to show that there's a notable number that expressed an opinion, and you haven't (and there isn't). The fact remains that an insignificant number of self-identified professionals have expressed an opinion on a fringe theory. And as long as that's the case, their opinion remains....well, insignificant. RxS (talk) 17:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, those who signed the petition did so at great risk to their careers. There are probably many architects and engineers who doubt the official version of events, but who are afraid to sign the petition. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
[citation needed] And in any case, what does that have to do with anything? RxS (talk) 15:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Although it's a fringe group, this article is all about the fringe, so that the group is small compared with the majority view is not a relevant argument. It's just that their petition isn't relevant for this article, and that mentioning only this groups petition amongst all the petitions for new investigation gives undue weight to this particular petition of many petitions. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

We should have a small section that summarizes the article 9/11 Truth movement. In that summary, we may include something like "the group Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, which collects signatures in support of a new investigation, with subpoena power, into the September 11 attacks".  Cs32en Talk to me  13:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
A summary section about the truth movement seems reasonable, but it should rather mention that there are many petitions from different groups. Possible AE911T's can be used as an example, but I still think that's giving them undue weight. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
The material about the architects and engineers petition is not about just any petition by a group of concerned citizens. It is especially noteworthy because of the expertise of those signing the petition. Also, the number of signatories is going up daily apparently. Last time I looked it was in the 1,120's. Although this is a small % of the total number of architects and engineers, it's relevant that this many would come forward, at great risk to their careers, to sign the petition. Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Many other groups with various forms of expertise also have petitions. All my previous arguments stands. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I've had a few days to step back and I'm hoping to re-approach this a little less emotionally. I decided to look up Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and try again at the beginning. Here's a quote from the first section about focusing on content: "The most important first step is to focus on content, and not on editors. Wikipedia is built upon the principle of collaboration and assuming that the efforts of others are in good faith is important to any community. When you find a passage in an article that you find is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can. If that is not easily possible, and you disagree with a point of view expressed in an article, don't just delete it. Rather, balance it with what you think is neutral."
I believe the section to be biased, and I am trying to improve it by adding a reference to a group of scientists that specifically believe that the conditions surrounding the wtc7 collapse deserve more study. I may need help with the reference, I get the basics of how to make it but I am uncertain how to make some of the text at the end.
If you have contentions with the insert, please state them in clear and simple terms. I would love to understand them. Mojokabobo (talk) 12:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I cleaned up your reference, and added two more. TIP: You can find good references at the bottom of the page, hit "edit" for that section, and use the good reference coding as a guide. I changed the wording just slightly. What do you think? Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Seems good to me Ghost, thanks for the help. Mojokabobo (talk) 13:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I have stated my contentions in clear and simple terms multiple times. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Straw poll - Inclusion of information about Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth petition

The text as it stands in the current form added by Mojokabobo is an improvement on previous edits (although it would even be better if Mojokabobo and other conspiracy theorists could join the discussions before editing. But I still have problems with it. Since discussion is obviously pointless as neither Mojokabobo nor Ghostofnemo are interested in building consensus, let's try a straw poll.

Should the text "However, a current petition signed by more than a 1,000 architects and engineers states that they question the results of NIST, and calls for a renewed investigation." be included in the "World Trade Center collapse" section? --OpenFuture (talk) 13:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose: It gives undue weight to one of many petitions. And the whole article is about the conspiracy theories, we already know the conspiracists do not agree with NIST, it's pointless repetition of one POV. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Generally agree with OpenFuture; in addition, specific objections to the text as written include the problem that the claim that these are "architects and engineers" solely belongs to the group, and there is no reliable source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per above - especially concerned about stating as fact things which are put forward by AE911 - they are not reliable sources for anything except their own opinions - if those opinions are notable, they would be adressed by multiple reliable secondary sources. Hipocrite (talk) 14:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support
The statements
"The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has rejected the theory and the NIST and many mainstream scientists refuse to debate conspiracy theorists to avoid giving them unwarranted credibility. Specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering generally accept the model of a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse of the World Trade Center buildings, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives."
are specifically designed to give the reader the impression that scientists and professionals in general refuse to acknowledge the issue. I am attempting to eliminate bias and introduce neutrality by citing a specific petition made up by scientists (architects and engineers). To address Arthur Rubin, the source clearly shows the names and license numbers of the people who you claim are not well sourced by the group. The source is clear, and should be considered valid. To address Hipocrite, the revision does not state the opinion of the group as fact, it merely states the opinion of the group in order to introduce neutrality and eliminate bias. The source has been mentioned on many different news outlets. To address OpenFuture, the specific group is not undue to mention because it is specifically made up of scientists, which has relevance to the paragraph in question. Mojokabobo (talk) 14:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
AE911 is not a reliable source for the number of signers of a petition, nor for any details about those signers. Anything AE911 states as true is not necessarily true. Hipocrite (talk) 14:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok then, How's the Washington Times for you?? Mojokabobo (talk) 15:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
The group claims to be made up not of scientists, but Architects and Engineers. There are however two other groups (that also have petitions) claiming to be made up of scientists. Again, proving beyond any reasonable or unreasonable doubt that the text gives undue weight to one specific petition. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
To prove beyond any reasonable or unreasonable doubt that the text gives undue weight, I would love to see those petitions if you could please source them. I would suggest that they should also be included if their sources are good and they are indeed relevant. Until I see those petitions that you speak of, OpenFuture, I do believe the premise still stands that this bit of text is indeed relevant and should merit inclusion. Mojokabobo (talk) 23:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes I can see this information would be hard to find.
Is that enough? A quick googling found not only these, but also at least two more on petitiononline, which is blocked by Wikipedias spamfilter. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Great work OpenFuture, which ones would you like to include as well? Unomi (talk) 06:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
You would also have done well in reading through the long discussion we have had on the topic before you voted in the straw poll. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
What makes you think that I didn't? Unomi (talk) 07:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Stating questions that already is answered, and posting arguments that already have been covered. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Good work OpenFuture, which would you recommend being included? We could just source all of those and make a statement more along the lines of "Various different petitions have surfaced with numerous signatures that question the events of 9/11". However, I still believe the reference to A&E for 9/11 truth is especially relevant in comparison to those groups, because A&E for 9/11 truth specifically is a petition that has sought to include scientists on the petition (architectural and engineering, which are both science fields). Also, do those petitions really fit WP source? Mojokabobo (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok, but what do you think of using the resource, which is an established and credible resource? Mojokabobo (talk) 23:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion of information about the architects' and engineers' petition, and supporting references. The scientists' petitions should also be mentioned if we can find references. Inclusion of this information is necessary to maintain a neutral point of view. I see the material has already been removed for the third time though.Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
If a third of the American public believes there was a government conspiracy, is it still considered a fringe theory? Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support AE911 Is a notable group, that is why we have an article on them. They focus exclusively on 9/11 which is why their opinion is notable for this article, this particular opinion does not need to be covered by other sources, and claiming that they do is unsupported by policy. I wouldn't want to state much of anything as fact, but would be comfortable with something along the lines: AE9/11 states that... Unomi (talk) 02:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
That is a good point at the end there Unomi. I had been trying to think of a way to remove the word 'however' and fit it with something a bit more impartial. I would support changing the word 'however' to the alternate lead-in you suggested. Mojokabobo (talk) 03:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support per Unomi and others above. I just became aware of this blatant attempt at censorship, and in my view to not even allow mention that this petition exists in a Wikipedia article about '9-11 conspiracy theories' is absolutely nuts. It's this kind of crazed attempt to control even a mention of such a petition that feeds paranoia. Surely even those 100% believers in the 'official' version of the tragic events of 9/11 can see that? (Sadly, I guess not.) Jusdafax 03:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Of course, nobody is doing anything like that. You apparently have been WP:CANVASsed in here, and are not aware of the discussion and have not read the *one week* of debate that has preceded this. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Now now, no reason to get paranoid. Unomi (talk) 06:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm. How do you say... there was something about a pot and a kettle and some color... --OpenFuture (talk) 06:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Wasn't there though? ;) Unomi (talk) 06:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Have not been canvassed, and you had best start assuming good faith. My watchlist is too big to keep track of everything closely. I remain astonished that this strawpoll is needed at all. To not include mention that AE911 exists in this article is censorship... period. Jusdafax 07:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
The discussion isn't about whether to mention AE9111T. You obviously have not read the debate, just as everybody else that supports the inclusion. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose It is standard Wikipedia practice when there is sub article on a subject to only summarize it in the main article. Under this particular situation it is undue weight. The sourcing is reliable and it more then appropriate for the reactions section of the subarticle Edkollin (talk) 17:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed wording by unomi

In 2010 The Washington Times reported that a petition by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth has been signed by more than 1,000 architects and engineers requesting a formal inquiry by United States Congress to investigate the destruction of the Twin Towers and Building 7 at the World Trade Center.[1][2]

  • Support This wording strikes me as concise, sourced to an RS and relevant to the article. Unomi (talk) 07:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - For exactly the same reasons as the other wording above:
    • It's not particularly relevant for the section. A petition is not a conspiracy, and it did not cause the collapse of the WTC. It's relevant for the 9/11 truth movement article.
    • It gives undue weight to one of many petitions.
    • And the whole article is about the conspiracy theories, we already know the conspiracists do not agree with NIST, it's pointless repetition of one POV, and hence breaks NPOV.
    • AE911T is not a reliable source. We have no independent support for the claim that they are Architects and Engineers.
    None of these problems have been dealt with by this wording, or even acknowledged by the conspiracy crew. We are not going to get anywhere until the concerns are addressed and resolved. You need to engage in consensus building,not just repetition of statements that was answered long ago. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I have addressed what I understand to be your issues below. Unomi (talk) 10:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support But I don't think we have to include "According to the Washington Times" before mentioning the petition. That makes it sound as if the fact a petition exists is under dispute. How about, "According to Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth more than 1,000 architects and engineers have signed their petition calling for a new investigation into the collapses of three of the World Trade Center buildings." Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Personally I prefer particular attribution, but how about the Washington Times reported ..? oh, and please sign. Unomi (talk) 11:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, that's what the references are for. You don't have to attribute the reference in the article unless there is some reason to. Just a style thing. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Honestly, I just prefer to attribute as much as I can, I don't think it detracts from the reading. If you want you can remove it. Unomi (talk) 11:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Perhaps mistakenly, I believe that the objections have been addressed and the wording and placement of the text is understood to not be terribly controversial or against policy. As such I have made the edit here. Unomi (talk) 12:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Some editors have question whether all the signatories who claim to be architects or engineers actually are. So it seems less contentious if we put that "According to" before "A&E for 9/11 Truth". Also, by attributing your source in the article you're making it sound like this petition's existence is somehow dubious since only one news source picked up the story, when in fact, it's just because most of the media are too chicken-&*%$ to touch this controversy, just like the invasion of Iraq. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad it's back in the article, but it really belongs in the World Trade Center collapse section! That's what the petition is about, and it balances all the NIST stuff about how the official version is the only possible explanation. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Personally I reject the notion that stating that Washington Post Times reported this to somehow imply that they did not report this, not attributing has the same basic effect except the reader has no idea who reported it was unless they go thru the refs. Personally I think the problem is that wikipedia generally uses particular attribution too little, due to users believing somehow that readers trust anonymous wikipedia editors more that Washington Post, a frightening prospect ;) Washington Post states as fact that it was 1k A&E's as such it is verifiable from our pov. We can second guess our sources all day long, or we can simply rely on WP:RS. If we say that Washington Post is an RS then we have to trust their reporting, it could even be argued that attributing the 1k A&E claim to AE911 would be misrepresenting our source as it makes no such qualification ( for better or worse). The NIST position is the mainstream view, it is not our job to seek to balance it, simply state the facts. The placing of the text where I put it seems the most reasonable, as it shows the trajectory of support and development of the theories. Unomi (talk) 12:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it was the Times, not the Post. All the readers have to do is click the reference number and it takes them to the reference. Then they can read the story themselves. (I'm amazed how many Wiki editors misquote references though.) I agree that one news source is plenty, it's just that by wording it that way, it looks like a weak assertion. Ideally, we could find multiple references, but this is still too hot for the news media. Even the Huffington Post censored Jesse Ventura on this exact topic: Regarding balancing, this is an article about 9/11 conspiracy theories, yet any attempt to fairly and neutrally represent those views is being sabotaged by a gang of editors who just don't like those ideas. The fact that these architects and engineers question the official explanation for the building collapses belongs in precisely that section, because it illustrates that even architects and engineers, and not just a small group, question the government's explanation. The 9/11 attacks article is almost exclusively the government's account. This article is supposed to be about the conspiracy theories, yet, despite having a separate article, evidence supporting conspiracy theories is being tampered with here. And I can't get the administrators to stop it. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
You must be new here. Remember the following for the future: The perfect is the enemy of the good. Unomi (talk) 13:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Objections by OpenFuture

  • It's not particularly relevant for the section. A petition is not a conspiracy, and it did not cause the collapse of the WTC. It's relevant for the 9/11 truth movement article.
This seems like a focus on the fact that it is a petition, rather than what it is a petition for. Surely a reasonable person like yourself would recognize that the cause of the collapse is known and well understood. The petition calls directly for further fringe conspiracy inquiry, ergo relevance is met. It is truly sad that 1000 architects and engineers (according to the washington times) buy into conspiracy theory hokum, yet the fact is clearly relevant. Unomi (talk) 10:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
We know that conspiracy theorists are conspiracy theorists. The page is about conspiracy theories. Do we really need to repeat that conspiracy theorists don't believe the official explanation, but believes in a conspiracy theory? The section *starts* with talking about the controlled demolition theory. And then it adds the statement "The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has rejected the theory and the NIST and many mainstream scientists refuse to debate conspiracy theorists to avoid giving them unwarranted credibility" to give balance to the article and retain NPOV. Why would we reintroduce POV by repeating that the conspiracy theorists don't believe it? Makes no sense. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
You know.. You are absolutely right, this text is in the wrong place, it probably should be at the end of the initial history section. This would solve the tit for tat back and forth. Unomi (talk) 11:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
  • It gives undue weight to one of many petitions.
You are certainly welcome to present arguments for including others, there is plenty of room. There is no deadline and I am sure we can work towards the righting that particular wrong down the line. Unomi (talk) 10:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
That section is hardly the right place to have a list of petitions. Again, petitions are not conspiracy theories, nor did they cause the collapse of WTC. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, lets move it up to the History section. Petitions themselves are not conspiracy theories, but the position that these petitions seek to support are considered conspiracy hokum. Unomi (talk) 11:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
That's definitely an improvement. Thanks for taking a constructive attitude to this. It still gives undue weight to one of a multitude of petitions. I do think having a paragraph on the Truth movement having created loads of petitions could be relevant there. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
  • And the whole article is about the conspiracy theories, we already know the conspiracists do not agree with NIST, it's pointless repetition of one POV, and hence breaks NPOV.
But this article is exactly about those rascally conspiracy nutters, I am also not sure how that fits in with your argument above. That they are petitioning Congress is a notable and relevant piece of information for the article. We state repeatedly the soundness of the NIST case, their careful scholarship and investigative efforts. WP:YESPOV is satisfied. Unomi (talk) 10:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
We state repeatedly the conspiracy theories as well. The section talks about the conspiracy theories, and then adds that NIST refutes them to add balance. So the addition is like saying:
  • Conspiracy theorists believe in controlled demolition.
  • NIST doesn't agree with that.
  • Conspiracy theorists doesn't agree with NIST. (No shit? Really?)
How long should we go on like that? Should we mention NIST and then petitions again, in a circle? What's wrong with stating each sides POV once? --OpenFuture (talk) 10:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you, I think we can address this by moving it to the end of the History section where the content fits more naturally. Unomi (talk) 11:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
  • AE911T is not a reliable source. We have no independent support for the claim that they are Architects and Engineers.
Well, the Washington Times is an RS, remember wikipedia is about 'verifiability', not truth (heaven forbid). Using particular attribution to the Washington Times ensures that we meet WP:V and WP:RS. Unomi (talk) 10:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
It's pretty obvious that AE911T is the original source for the statement in WT as well. But AE911T lists all the thousand people on the website, so it probably is possible to independently verify all the names, so I guess that is verifiability in some sense. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Great! Unomi (talk) 11:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
That would mean that if one of the thousand is incorrect, the entire source can and must be considered unreliable? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • A WT light-features column (Inside the beltway) is hardly a reliable source for this. Hipocrite (talk) 12:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I would suggest to you that you take your concerns to RS/N, Washington Post is generally accepted as a RS, if there are particular claims that you take issue with then please clarify. Unomi (talk) 12:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
The specific claim I take issue with is the statement that the WT verified that the 1000 all signed the petition, and that the 1000 are all A&E. Hipocrite (talk) 12:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I think that is a fair concern, would you agree that your current wording addresses it? Unomi (talk) 12:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Due to problems with the quality and reliability of the sources, a problem of notability and relevance of the information, and a problem interpreting the source ("peers" to me means other conspiracy theorists), I have removed the disputed text. Verbal chat 12:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
This has all been hashed out above in the discussion. We have a mainstream news source reporting that a large group of architects and engineers have signed a petition calling for a new investigation. That is very, very relevant, especially considering how controversial this is. But it belongs in the WTC collapse section. It relevant, it's worthy of inclusion, it's supported by a mainstream news source. Omitting this information is censorship, clear and simple. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Please provide some WP:RS to back those assertions up. The source, which is a column not a news report, says "peers". Please take your uncivil and histrionic accusations of "censorship" elsewhere. Verbal chat 13:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Verbal, the default position is that Washington Times is an RS, it is also fully attributed to them in the text, if you believe this to be in error please do take it to RS/N. For your other matters please mention them above, individually, in detail. The reporter states directly that the signatories are architects and engineers. Unomi (talk) 13:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The petition does specifically call for including conspiracy theories so is relevant. It is mentioned by multiple major mainstream news sources so is notable and there is no dispute regarding the qualifications of the members of the movement so I can't see what the problem is with inclusion.Wayne (talk) 13:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree - Verbal's revert of 04:52, March 17, 2010 is out of line, as I see it, and the talkpage comments of "uncivil" and "histrionic accusations" and the invitation to take such "elsewhere" is as well. Jusdafax 14:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see verbal out of line at all, especially not in calling Ghost on his unwarrented accusations. Taking into account the opinion he expresses on his fellow editors on wikipedia , here for example, one would gather Verbal's assertion to be correct. Accusing others of forming a gang to further political goals, while a the same time pushing an obvious agenda himself is not particularly good wikistyle. Just sayin'. (talk) 14:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
There is a certain problem with reverting without engaging in conversation on the talk page. His blanket statement of Due to problems with the quality and reliability of the sources, a problem of notability and relevance of the information, and a problem interpreting the source ("peers" to me means other conspiracy theorists), I have removed the disputed text. betrays a flawed reading of the source, the article states in its first paragraph 1000 architects and engineers, peers is not the rationale. The unspecified nature of his list of perceived issues prevent us from addressing them. I asked him to be more specific, yet he made 2 edits to another article after that and now seems to have disappeared. Presumably he knew exactly the reasons he had for reverting, it wouldn't be that hard for him to, err, write them down rather than to simply enumerate their nature. It is a shame, as I believe we were actually making some collective progress. Who knows, maybe it doesn't need to be WP:BATTLE. Unomi (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
There is a certain problem, yes, but not as much as adding controversial texts before a consensus has emerged. We don't have one yet. There is a very specified list of issues, and it's above. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Lets not get agitated here :) Its BRD, I am well within my right to boldly add some text especially since we seemed to be close to be in full agreement. Verbal is also well within his right to revert, but only if it is to take part in discussion, really, thats the deal. Verbal knows this. From your original objections I see only 1 remaining point of contention; That's definitely an improvement. Thanks for taking a constructive attitude to this. It still gives undue weight to one of a multitude of petitions. I do think having a paragraph on the Truth movement having created loads of petitions could be relevant there, you even approved of me inserting it and we were well on the way to implementing your, perfectly valid, suggestion. I do worry that listing each petition would indeed run afoul of undue weight wrt the article as a whole. How about Over x petitions ranging from .. to .. have been created since 2001 garnering over y signatories. In 2010 Washington Times reported ..  ? Unomi (talk) 18:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not one bit agitated, stop accusing people for emotions and other nonsense. I am not you, stop projecting. And yes, you are within your right to add it, and he is very much within his right to remove something that is under discussion, even if he doesn't have anything to add to that discussion.
I don't understand what you would want to say after "Washington times reported...." If you want to quote about the AE9111T petition, that would yet again give undue weight to one out of the many petitions, for no obvious reason.
I'd suggest something like "Several organisations has started petitions to do further investigations" and simply reference the petitions. A link to a petition must be seen as a reliable source that the petition exists, right? :o) Maybe add something about the aims or reasons, "because the see the current investigation as lacking" or somesuch. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I must admit I don't see the issue with naming the notable petition in text. It is 2 lines. Unless there are sources I am missing than this is one of the more recently notable ones. Undue weight in relation to other petitions only makes sense if those petitions are of similar notability. Apologies if you took offence at my wording, but there is in fact a difference between boldly adding text that one has reasonable assumptions of sticking, to removing text without discussing. I thought perhaps high emotions had blurred that distinction for you. In any case no offence was meant and no dig intended. Unomi (talk) 23:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with OF and H, and I'm afraid these issues have not been addressed. Verbal chat 20:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I think I have a suggestion for compromise. How would it sound to add the sentence, "A current petition (as of 2010) signed by more than a 1,000 architects and engineers states that they question the results of NIST investigation, and calls for a new investigation.[3][4][5] to the END of the WTC collapse section.
As I've said before, this specific petition would be a good add, and would make good sense to have in the WTC collapse section because this group specifically questions the collapse of the WTC physics. I do believe that some of the issue that has precluded its inclusion is the position of the statement alongside the statement about mainstream scientists/NIST position. If we were to add the statement to the end of the paragraph, I believe that it could be less controversial. In the end, I am not in consensus if this statement does not get added to the WTC collapse section, because the inclusion of it is imperative in my opinion to helping aide the neutrality of the section and provide the readers with more information. Mojokabobo (talk) 04:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The positioning is ok, but the wording of the line is a bit awkward, especially with the date. How about this: "The group Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth claims to have collected the signatures of more than 1,000 architects and engineers who question the findings of the official investigations, and who support a new investigation into the causes of the collapses of the three World Trade Center buildings."(Washington Times reference)(A&E 911 Truth signatory page reference) Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Yet again, you single out one petition of many for no obvious reason. I just don't get the fixation with this specific petition. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Because architects and engineers have special expertise in the field of building collapses, obviously. Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
They do not have more relevant expertise than many scientists, and definitely not more relevant expertise than fireman. And besides, this is not the article about conspiracy theories about WTC collapse, but 9/11 conspiracy theories in general, so that focus isn't relevant. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
That focus isn't irrelevant either. Anyway.. this is getting tedious, I propose we invite comment on the matter. Unomi (talk) 08:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
No, that focus is simply wrong. Controlled demolition is far from the only conspiracy theory in 9/11. And even if this was only about WTC, the petitions of scientists and firemen would still be equally relevant as the AE911T one. Comments is probably a good idea. I simply do not understand your fixation with this specific petition. It's just one of many petitions to reopen the investigation. They all use the same arguments, and still ignore the same basics of logic and science. Maybe if somebody would explain why you are so hot for this petition? Are you claiming that the whole conspiracy theory hinges on the controlled demolition? --OpenFuture (talk) 09:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
OpenFuture, if you believe there are other notable petitions out there, you are more than welcome to give evidence of their existence, I must admit I am not as knowledgeable as you seem to be on whats moving in the conspiracy theory world, I would appreciate it if you would offer sources so that I may be enlightened. It should be clear why I am for including sourced, notable information. I am here to build an encyclopedia, the question is, why are you so keen to see it removed? Unomi (talk) 09:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I have already given evidence of their existence, as could you of you bothered to even Google for it. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you can present your case below as a courtesy. Unomi (talk) 10:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Architects and engineers know FAR more about building collapses than firemen. Would you let a fireman design a skyscraper? Also this is relevant because it is in the "WTC collapse" section of the article. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Apart from the straw man in your apparent response, there is no RS for A&E involving significant numbers of relevant professionals - just the two words in the name. Verbal chat 11:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
If you'll read above, OpenFuture is claiming firemen know more about building collapses than architects and engineers. No, I'm not making that up. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
The case is presented an available for all to see here on this page. I do not intent to repeat myself any more.
"Architects and engineers know FAR more about building collapses than firemen." - I'm an engineer. That statement is wrong. Fire safety of buildings is a specific area, and very few engineers, architects *or* firemen know much about it at all. But experts in the field exist both amongst firemen and engineers. The above statements stand: There has been no argument that holds up to reality that makes this petition more notable than other petitions. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment on inclusion of a RS supported petition

The mention of a petition has been removed, in subsequent discussion this presentation has been suggested. Currently the main argument against inclusion seems to be that this gives undue weight to one petition amongst many. It is at this point not clear if the other petitions are as notable. Unomi (talk) 09:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

  • At this point none of the petitions have been shown to be notable. Oppose introduction per WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. Verbal chat 10:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
It is unclear to me what it is about a 2 line mention of the contents of a piece in Washington Times that you consider in violation of those policies, please expand your rationale. The group itself is notable, that is why we have an article on them. The petition itself has been mentioned in a number of sources:
Fringe seems especially odd, seeing as how this article is exactly about conspiracy theories. Unomi (talk) 11:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
The source being used to claim that these are architects and engineers is an unreliable fringe source. See all the discussion above which you took part in for a detailed run through of the problems. Verbal chat
No, I don't know why you keep claiming that instead of simply reading the Washington Times piece. The Washington Times states : A thousand architects and engineers want to know, and are calling on Congress to order a new investigation into the destruction of the Twin Towers and Building 7 at the World Trade Center.. Unomi (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
It has also been suggested that this version be inserted in the "World Trade Center collapse" section: "The group Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth claims to have collected the signatures of more than 1,000 architects and engineers who question the findings of the official investigations, and who support a new investigation into the causes of the collapses of the three World Trade Center buildings."(Washington Times reference at (A&E 911 Truth signatory page reference at The names, titles and, where applicable, license numbers of the signatories are displayed here. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Unomi: Yes, you have a reference. Fine? So what? There is still nothing that supports the idea that this petition is more notable than the other petitions. Loads of people signed, the government ignores them all. Now please answer my question: Why are you so fixated with this specific petition? --OpenFuture (talk) 18:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, there are three editors who feel this information is worthy of inclusion. We've told you why, repeatedly. Ghostofnemo (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, four: Me, Unomi, Jusdafax, and Mojokabobo. Ghostofnemo (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but you, Jusdafax and Mojokabobo never answers questions or reads arguments. So I'm not asking you, I'm asking Unomi. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't follow this closely, true, and have been busy elsewhere. However, since my name has been brought in since my last comment some days ago, I'll just say again that it seems utterly obvious to include mention of the A&E petition in the article. It is notable, sourced, and this is where the information belongs. Those against including it in an article about theories on 9/11 on the (to me) flimsy pretexts of 'undue weight' and 'fringe' are either (in my opinion) ignorant of the purpose and function of Wikipedia in general and this article in particular, or censors with an agenda. Put the information in the article. Jusdafax 19:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I conquer. Put the information in the article.Zzzmidnight (talk) 01:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Reinstating text per policy based consensus

Seeing as how the arguments against the inclusion seem to be based on either misreading the source or, so far, unsubstantiated claims of unfair emphasis on 1 petition among many equally notable ones, I am reinserting the text. I have put it at the end of the history section as this seems the least controversial place according to OpenFuture. I would strongly urge further discussion before this text is altered. Unomi (talk) 00:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Line regarding petition was removed by Cs32en (talk) because user claims the existence of the petition is not alleged. Here is a possible revision. I will notify said user of this discussion.
In 2010 The Washington Times reported that Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth had collected the signatures of more than 1,000 people who the group claims are architects and engineers, requesting a formal inquiry by United States Congress to investigate the destruction of the Twin Towers and Building 7 at the World Trade Center."
I'd like to add this reference, too. Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
The wording "who the group claims are architects and engineers" still implies that the Washington Times would report this as a somewhat suspect information. If we don't find a good substitute for "peers", why not leave the number of petition signers out of the sentence? Those who are interested can find the information in the article on Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth Cs32en Talk to me  06:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the bit about alleged is suspect, the word can be removed as peers is not the rationale for stating that the signatories are A&Es, the source states explicitly that the signatories are A&Es in its first paragraph. Unomi (talk) 11:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Unomi, I *am* discussing it. You, however, have now started the same behavior as the conspiracists here: You refuse to answer my questions or explain your position. Therefore, it should not be added at all, according to the standard WP:BRD process. I have suggested an alternative text that I think is OK, and nobody protested against that, so it seems fairly uncontroversial to write something like that. But yet you persist, without explanation, to give undue weight to one out of many petitions. Why? --OpenFuture (talk) 07:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
OpenFuture, with respect, you are not discussing it, the argument that you venture regarding undue weight to one petition among many equally notable petitions is not one that you have sought to substantiate. Why not? I told you why I find the sourced, notable, relevant information as having a place in the article; Because it is sourced, notable and relevant. Unomi (talk) 11:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
In what way have I not substantiated it? You have been asked multiple times to explain why you are so obsessed with this particular petition. Your response has been silence. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Your arguments are frankly bizarre. You are saying that this would give undue weight to one petition among many, yet have offered no sources indicating the relative notability of those other petitions, I have offered multiple sources that discuss the petition, the onus is on you to substantiate your argument. I am also somewhat perplexed that you continue this very low brow insinuation campaign of me being obsessed with a particular petition, there are no grounds on which to exclude it, so why would we? Reconsider your position, if you still think it valid then please substantiate it. Unomi (talk) 11:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
The AE911T group got more press thanks to the Van Jones controversy, but Scholars for 9/11 Truth also has a lot of press, as a quick google search will confirm if you can be bothered. Why exclude them? You still don't answer that. Your text sounds like AE911T is the only group making this sort of petition, and is as such misleading, and you refuse to explain why you want that. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
As much as I would like to take your word for this, it is your job to present RS' which support your position, all you have done is assert that they exist, with links to the petition sites, thats nice but it doesn't really support your argument that mentioning the AE911 petition somehow excludes other, equally notable, petitions in the face of numerous RS which mention the AE911 one. Google it is not a valid form of argument. You have been notified of the applicability of discretionary sanctions in this topic area. You have been made aware of the flaws in your contention and you do not seem to have forwarded further evidence that supports it. Please rethink your approach. Unomi (talk) 14:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I've also explained that this petition is especially relevant because the signers are experts on buildings and structures. Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
How 'bout this. If we put it in the "World Trade Center collapse" section, it is very relevant to that section, because architects and engineers are experts on buildings and structures. Maybe the other petitions can be mentioned in other sections where they are relevant. They don't all have to be inserted at the same time, but this one is good to go. Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
How about we leave it in the list of petitions. It's not especially relevant, and Washington Times article reads like an OpEd column, rather than news. It might be usable for a list of petitions, but we would have no reliable sources for the real count of signatures. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Unless we can cite multiple third-party reliable sources about petitions (note the plural), we're violating WP:UNDUE and WP:OR. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Exactly how is it my job to through RS show that your text ignores other petitions and makes it sounds like AE911T is the only petition around? Come on.
You have been notified of the applicability of discretionary sanctions in this topic area. - I'm aware of the senctions.
You have been made aware of the flaws in your contention - No, I have not. You are trying intimidation and trying to scare me with baseless threats of being blocked, to hide your lack of argumentation. This discussion is over. If you still want a text mentioning only this petition, raise it dispute resolution, I'm not discussing with somebody who behaves like you. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I respect your decision to excuse yourself from this article. Recent posts by me on this page are full of requests for you to substantiate your argument, you either cannot or will not do so, don't blame that on me. Unomi (talk) 18:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Everything you write above is incorrect. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── This seems to be your sole attempt at substantiating your argument, I tried to accommodate you here. Yet you continued to use it as grounds for excluding content here(where you also betray a lack of reading comprehension), I have explained why this is insufficient here and here, Other editors have pointed out problems with your argument here. Yet you have continued stonewalling here and again here, ignoring my queries and details. You continue to blatantly reverse the burden of proof. I plainly state the problem with your argument here, again. Yet you claim I never told you. You behavior is beyond childish, and the only reason I have not yet sought you removed is that I had some hope that you could be reasoned with. Unomi (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Unomi whose masterful exposition above details the problems here. OpenFuture is unreasonable and should be dealt with as such. More than enough good faith has been expended, as I see it. Removal is the next step; I will back any such effort to the hilt. Enough is enough. Jusdafax 19:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Unomi: You continue to make claims that are not in accordance with the actual facts. That makes it even more impossible to discuss the issue with you than it was before. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolving Concerns

We seem to be revisiting the same concerns repeatedly. Perhaps if the involved editors could state the issues they take below. If you don't see your particular concern listed, please list it now. Unomi (talk) 18:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Issue with what exactly? --OpenFuture (talk) 20:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, no answer on that. It's hard to list my issues with nothing. So I'll list my issues with your edit. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
  1. How about we leave it in the list of petitions. It's not especially relevant, and Washington Times article reads like an OpEd column, rather than news. It might be usable for a list of petitions, but we would have no reliable sources for the real count of signatures. — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] [[User talk:Arthur Rubin|(talk)]] 15:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
  2. Unless we can cite multiple third-party reliable sources about petitions (note the plural), we're violating WP:UNDUE and WP:OR. [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 16:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
  3. The petition should be presented in the context of a brief summary of the article 9/11 Truth Movement, in a new section "Supporters". We should source this to the Washington Post and other independent sources. We should also include that the 9/11 Truth movement calls for a new investigation, and we can present the AE911Truth petition as one example of this activity. We don't need to include words like "alleged", and we probably do not need in-line attribution of the sources. We also should not use language such as "In year xy, source Z reported..." as the report itself is probably not a notable event. I would make a proposal on how we may summarize the 9/11 Truth movement article in this article if we agree to include such a section.  Cs32en Talk to me  20:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
  4. Since this petition deals with the WTC collapses, it belongs in that section. It is highly relevant to that section. The petition clearly does exist, and it does seem clear that at least some of a large proportion of the signers are architects and engineers. On top of that, it has been mentioned in the news media, but not as much as one would expect, because this is a highly, highly controversial topic in the U.S. and the mainstream media don't want to touch it. It's not that it isn't newsworthy, it's that it cannot be discussed openly. Look how the Washington Post went postal on a Japanese cabinet minister lawmaker for daring to comment on this:

And here is the story about the censorship of Jesse Ventura: Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
It's not really controversial in the US. Most Americans consider it a joke, really. The only really controversial aspect in the US is how annoying the 9/11 troofers are. Believe me, I've met them in person. They're extremely annoying. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
It seems very odd to me that a petition with more than 1,000 signatures of architects and engineers was not considered newsworthy by major media in the U.S. except the Washington Times. Do some news searches. It's like it didn't happen. Reminds me of the news coverage of the huge protests after the invasion of Iraq. Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I discovered a powerful new tool for dispute resolution today. It's called WP:Request for comment. We could try that. What do you think? Proposed question: A petition is being circulated by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, which has garnered the signatures, by their count, of more than 1,000 architects and engineers. The petition calls for a new investigation into the collapses of three of the WTC buildings. Is this notable for inclusion in the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories article? Which section is most appropriate? Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I opened an RfC a few days ago, see the preceding section. Unfortunately outside comments have not yet appeared. Unomi (talk) 04:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
We could try it again with different wording, and post it at the "Politics, Government, Law" section. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
  1. Unomis edit singles out one petition to the exclusion of all other similar petitions, making it sounds like the AE911T petition is the only of its kind, which is incorrect and blatantly misleading. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
That is simply not true, if you look at the proposed text it states Several groups have made petitions requesting a formal inquiry by United States Congress to investigate the destruction of the Twin Towers and Building 7 at the World Trade Center. [33][34][35][36][37]In 2010 The Washington Times reported that a Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth petition has been signed by more than 1,000 architects and engineers. Yes the A&E petition is given detail because it has received more coverage in RS' than others have, by the evidence that has been submitted above. Unomi (talk) 07:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
There are many proposed texts. Maybe you should have clarified exactly which proposal you where discussing? Or would that have made constructive discussion too easy? My issue with that edit is that it give undue weight to the AE911T petition. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Your argument has consistently been that it gives undue weight to the AE911 petition, and I have repeatedly asked you to clarify and substantiate that. Unomi (talk) 07:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
It's hardly unclear. You asked what my issue with the text was, you have your answer. Because of your earlier behavior, there will be no discussion. See above. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
It is either unclear or unsubstantiated, take your pick. There never was a discussion as you chose not to substantiate your argument when asked. Unomi (talk) 08:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I concur with Unomi. You can't keep claiming it's 'undue weight' without backing up your position. I repeat: OpenFuture, you have passed the point of being merely unreasonable, in my view, and cross into tendentious. Strongly suggest you put the sourced information in the article, or allow others to do so. Jusdafax 08:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
And I'll revert. I've read dozens if not hundreds of articles about 9/11 conspiracy theories. 5 articles doesn't impress me much and reeks of WP:RECENTISM. If you want to add something about petitions (note the plural), fine, but you need better sourcing. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Are you implying this petition doesn't exist? Why can't this petition be mentioned, and the others added later? If I edit an article about finches, and add an additional species of finch, would you say, wait, there are other unmentioned finches, you can't add that species unless you add all the other species at the same time? Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
No, I'm saying it's not important. Just because something can be verified doesn't mean it should be in an article. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
In any case, we can decide on the inclusion of each particular petition on its own respective merit. As long as there are few or no reliable sources about the other petition, singling out the AE911Truth petition would actually be the best way to present the issue. See also my previous comment above on this issue.  Cs32en Talk to me  13:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
If that many architects and engineers think there was a problem with the investigation, I think that makes it very relevant. If 1,000 Charlie Browns signed a petition, it would not be relevant. Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
What with 20.000 Charlie Browns? And how many scientists does it go on one architect? I already pointed out that most architects and engineers know nothing about the issue. It's a specialized field. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
They know nothing? Please be serious. Put this here 'cyclopedia to good use: architect engineer Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I am serious. And maybe you should read those articles. And then Fire protection engineering. And then realize that only those fore protection engineers who actually study the effects of fire on buildings know anything about the collapse of WTC. How many fire protection engineers have signed the petition? Two, and one says it must be controlled demolition because it was symmetrical, even though it pretty obviously wasn't symmetrical at all. So, yeah, very significant petition, indeed. Or not. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Ghostofnemo: How many reliable sources do we have that explicitly say that this particular petition is a major development in regards to this article's topic? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
If this wasn't political plutonium, I would suspect many. If a Japanese legislator even daring to mention it 9/11 conspiracy theories in passing results in the Washington Post questioning the relationship between Japan and the U.S., I think it's fair to assume the deck is stacked. Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Why? Why would *this particular petition* be more important than petitions made by scholars and firefighters? There is still no explanation to that, unless you seriously still thing that all engineers are experts on high rise structural damage by fire. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
What would it take to get you to consider a different explanation? Such as that it is a massive political insult, probably especially in the field of international politics, to accuse a country you have close relations with to have killed its own people. Wouldn't that explain the incident? Well, off-topic, anyway. Wikipedia is not a place to find new "truths" and to speculate on "suppressed knowledge", but to represent the verifiable, well-established knowledge we have. If you are not satisfied with the media, don't change wikipedia, change the world. (talk) 13:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, if the guy was the Prime Minister, but he wasn't. U.S. members of Congress say goofy stuff all the time. I'm just saying there seems to be an orchestrated effort to keep this topic out of the media. If there is nothing to hide, why so much resistance to discuss it? It should be scientifically and impartially investigated. Why not? Regarding the other petitions, fine, mention them in sections of the article where that is appropriate. Just because we think this one is worth mentioning doesn't mean the others aren't. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Regarding why the Architects and Engineers petition is more notable, it's because they are experts on buildings and collapses. The most important part of their job is to make buildings that don't collapse, and the WTC was designed to withstand a jet impact. But it collapsed anyway. WTC 7 wasn't hit by a jet, but it collapsed, too. Modern steel buildings don't collapse from fires or proximity to other building collapses. If more than 1000 architects and engineers say it was suspicious and needs further investigation, that is super relevant and super worthy of inclusion. But, hey, include the firefighter and scholars petitions too, in the relevant sections. THIS petition should be mentioned in the "WTC collapse" section. Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Another "RfC" proposal regarding mentioning A & E for 9/11 Truth petition

Proposed wording: "There is a dispute at 9/11 conspiracy theories over whether a petition signed by more than 1,000 architects and engineers, calling for a new investigation into the collapses of three of the World Trade Center buildings, is worthy of inclusion in the article. The petition has been mentioned by the news sources below, and the group sponsoring the petition, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, claims to have checked the credentials of those signing the petition as either architects or engineers to verify that they actually are.

Is this petition worthy of being mentioned in the "World Trade Center collapse" section of the 9/11 conspiracy theories article?" Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

2nd attempt at RFC regarding mentioning A & E for 9/11 Truth petition

There is a dispute at the 9/11 conspiracy theories article over whether a petition allegedly signed by more than 1,000 architects and engineers, calling for a new investigation into the collapses of three of the World Trade Center buildings, is worthy of inclusion in the article. The petition has been mentioned by the news sources below, and the group sponsoring the petition, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, claims to have checked the credentials of those signing the petition as either architects or engineers, to verify that they actually are members of those professions.

Is this petition worthy of being mentioned in the "World Trade Center collapse" section of the 9/11 conspiracy theories article? Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Worthy - This seems obvious to me. If more than 1,000 architects and engineers think a new investigation is needed, that clearly seems notable. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Exclude - We only have their (911aetruth) word that they are architects and engineers, and that they really signed the petition. We could write it as (A&E 9/11 Truth) claims that over 1000 architects and engineers signed a petition calling for (whatever the petition actually says, as reported by news media). (I know WP:WTA says we shouldn't use "claim", but that's really all we have. "States" is too definite.) With that phrasing, I'm not sure it's important enough to be worthy of notice. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - If you try to sign the petition you'll get told about the procedures. As far as I can tell, they make no attempt to check that people have the credentials they claim, only that their email and phone actually go to the person who filled in the form. nor do I think they *can* make such a check, at least not for anyone outside the US. Inside the US I don't know. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
NOTE: They list the signatories with their credentials on the A & E for 9/11 Truth website here: Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Their alleged credentials. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Worthy - This is totally appropriate to the article. The fact that 1000 architects signed a petition is significant. A call to take action based on this theory is completely noteworthy. I will withhold my opinion of the theory out of respect however. ;) Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Sorry, I just have to give my opinion. These theories give the Govt WAAAAAAYY too much credit for it's competence. If these so called elements could pull of 9/11 and all of it's elements, then how come they so screwed up Katrina, Abu Ghraib and the occupation of Iraq? Okay that is enough sedition for one day. Elmmapleoakpine (talk)
  • Comment - It seems to me that most of the decision making here involves WP:OR. Whether or not to include something, from our perspective, really has nothing to do with the topic itself. Decisions about whether to include or exclude should be based on the amount of coverage by reliable, mainstream sources. So we should be asking whether the sources listed qualify as "reliable and mainstream," and if they do, what weight would be justified. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 18:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Worthy - The A&E petition information belongs here. Attempts to keep even a mention of the A&E petition out of the article sure looks like censorship to me. It exists, is notable, and I'm frankly astonished that there is even a need for this discussion. Jusdafax 19:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Exclude Undue weight for a summary section due to minimal reliable source coverage Edkollin (talk) 20:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Since WTC controlled demolitions theories have been deemed central/important by many reliable sources consideration should be given to ditching the sub-article and giving the topic extensive space in the main article. Edkollin (talk) 20:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Exclude unless reliable and critical coverage of the petition is included. MiRroar (talk) 21:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Worthy to include this information. The material clearly meets all the criteria for inclusion. It seems there are some people who want to use Wikipedia as a place to debunk conspiracy theories rather than objectively cover them. We would be remiss if we did not mention this petition.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I think this discussion has encouraged us to lose track of what wikipedia articles are supposed to do. If this is a conspiracy theory article, then the purpose of the article is to explain the conspiracy theories. This alleged petition is fairly on point. Whether the petition is accurate or legitimate doesn't matter, the wikipedia article can simply point out that it exists and then describe the known characteristics. Whenever there is debate on the factual truth of something, that should not exclude it from mention in a wikipedia article. The very nature of our discussion here shows that the petition should be, at the very least, mentioned. Varus2319 (talk) 21:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Include As an uninvolved editor from the RfC, I find this to be clearly notable and I think it has RS to support it. Outback the koala (talk) 22:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Exclude The problem is that there exists a whole host of these petitions. The question is why mention this to the exclusion of others. The reasonable thing would be to mention that there are many petitions, and use this and some others as reference. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Include the credentials of the petitioners makes it clearly notable for inclusion.Wayne (talk) 14:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Include Except for partisan political reasons, I don't know why any of their analysis mentioned by WP:RS can't be included as well. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Include It sounds like the original argument against amounted to something like, as soon as a reputable group says something about a conspiracy theory, it's by definition inapplicable, because conspiracy theories are not reputable. Conspiracy theories aren't always false. I don't have a strong opinion on the article itself, but this is definitely relevant to the article's topic, and it's reliably sourced. Torchiest talk/contribs 17:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
    Eh, no, nobody ever claimed anything like that in this discussion. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
That was my impression of your comments at the very top of this whole section. The group wasn't comprised of conspiracy theorists, and was thus irrelevant. Torchiest talk/contribs 20:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
How would conspiracy theorists be irrelevant to an article about conspiracy theories? That makes no sense whatsoever. What has been claimed is two things: 1. That the petition doesn't fulfill WP:NOTABILITY and shouldn't be included, and 2. that there are many other petitions, so if it should be included it should be in a general section mentioning that there has been many petitions made. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Exclude A reading of the sources is not persuasive that 1,000 professionals have actually signed the petition or that this information is notable. The only article that is directly about the petition appears in the Washington Times which does not establish notability. Also it does not appear that the journalist made any attempt to verify the story. The next two articles are local stories that mention the petition tangentially. The story in the Russian Times is an editorial. And while I know nothing about the Macedonian International News Agency, it is too far removed from the story to be a good source. Please find a respected news source that directly reports the petition. Ask yourself this: If you want to know what is going on in the world, are these the first places that you would look? TFD (talk) 08:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
This is a very sensitive, potentially politically explosive issue, and it appears the mainstream media are not eager, or not allowed, to touch it. Not one mainstream media outlet has picked up this story. Not one! That's either an amazing coincidence (not one editor found this newsworthy?) or else the topic is off limits. In the discussion above it was noted that Jesse Ventura was censored on this topic, and that the U.S.-Japan alliance was called into question (by the Washington Post!) because a Japanese legislator dared to discuss it. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
If nobody finds a story newsworthy, that's hardly a "coincidence", but a big hint that maybe the story simply isn't newsworthy. Newspapers are likely to be better at judging that than you are. Again, petitions for investigations are old news. Yet another petition is just gonna get a big yawn from both newspapers and the general public. I must say I completely fail to see how yet another petition is sensitive or explosive. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
There are many examples of the media not only avoiding, but actively suppressing newsworthy stories that are politically sensitive or that conflict with their own interests. Lack of media coverage is not a valid criteria for exclusion when the topic is controversial. The artical repeatedly mentions experts rejecting various theories so why the problem with a limited mention of those experts who believe otherwise. I would also point out in answer to claims of "alledged credentials" that 911 truth investigates the background of every signatory and goes to extreme lengths to remove people from the petition that may cast doubt on it's legitimacy. Wayne (talk) 14:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Lack of media coverage is not a valid criteria for exclusion when the topic is controversial.- Yes there is, and in any case, there is no controversy. This petition simply is not any big deal. It's just one petition amongst many and thoroughly uncontroversial. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
It is my opinion, OpenFuture, that you need to learn to say in my opinion more often. Many here clearly disagree with your opinions. Also: in my view you are showing signs of article ownership per WP:OWN. Jusdafax 16:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Include, notability is for article topics, not article content. As this seems the petition most often covered in media (even if it is not all that much) then relative weight issues can not be used to exclude it. Unomi (talk) 10:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Include. I came here from the RfC, I'm not an involved editor. As far as I can tell, it's significant and worth mentioning within the context of 9/11 conspiracy theories. If there are concerns about the validity of the petition itself, then a careful choice of words could frame the petition appropriately. So what if the petition itself is not necessarily a reliable source? We don't need it to be. For example, the bigfoot article would be terrible if it excluded widely-publicised bigfoot sightings. Simply mentioning the petition does not necessarily endorse it. bobrayner (talk) 13:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Exclude Just because something can be verified doesn't mean it should be in an article. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. This seems like a very minor blip in regards to the overall scope of this article. Are there any reliable sources that say that this particular petition is a major development in regards to this article's topic? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Include I came here from a page asking for comments. After reading the above discussion I think that the arguments for including it are more persuasive. --AlfredGeorgeWoolsie (talk) 19:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Exclude per WP:WEIGHT. We appropriately link to Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, where the coverage belongs. If this article were maybe a third its current size I could see it, but it is better to focus on larger issues here with additional detail in related articles. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Exclude Aside from the Times article, the mentions are pretty meager. We cannot simply assume this is because the powers-that-be are suppressing this story, nor can we assume that the signers' credentials are accurate. As it is, I don't see that the existence of this petition is all that relevant for this page. Phiwum (talk) 23:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
This is from WP:YESPOV:
"The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints. It is not a lack of viewpoint, but is rather an editorially neutral, point of view. An article and its sub-articles should clearly describe, represent, and characterize all the disputes within a topic, but should not endorse any particular point of view. It should explain who believes what, and why, and which points of view are most common. It may contain critical evaluations of particular viewpoints based on reliable sources, but even text explaining sourced criticisms of a particular view must avoid taking sides.
The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting perspectives on a particular topic. It requires that all majority views and significant minority views published by reliable sources be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material."
Note the phrase, "all the disputes within a topic". Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Can you explain why you want the article to pretend that there is one and only one petition, based on what you just quoted? --OpenFuture (talk) 06:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
You can include as many petitions as you like, but this one should definitely be in the article because of who the signers are. Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to reinsert this into the article, because it does seem to be relevant to the collapse of the WTC, we do have reliable sources WP:RS that mention it, one of them explicitly mentions conspiracy theories: "The terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre on September 11, 2001, have spawned a cottage industry devoted to questioning whether they were the work of al-Qaeda and hinting that it was an inside job." and "Mr Gage has promoted the suggestion that, owing to the way the building collapsed - straight down, much like a controlled demolition using explosives - and the presence of residue from a high explosive in the debris, that it was deliberately brought down." and it is notable because the signers of the petition do appear to be architects and engineers per the organizers petition page here: Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
A) it is their claim that signers are architects and engineers, B) both architecture and engineering are vast fields, Richard Gage himself is a great example of an architect with close to no expertise on the matter he is talking about whatsoever, and he is particularly in-your-face at that, thus C) since we cannot take the claims of AE911T at face value and since the members' expertise apperantly did not go much further than signing an online petition (rather than producing scientific pieces on the topic), the petition is not of greater significance than the equally self-proclaimed "Scholars for 991 Truth". Also, this seems to be more in the scope of the article on the truth movement, since the conspiracy theory part of the petition is covered already in detail, and the petition itself is more of a "truth movement" thing. (talk) 13:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
A) If you visit their web page given above, it notes their titles and license numbers. B) Any architect or engineer knows more than the general public about buildings, how they are designed, and what causes them to collapse. So this is much more notable than a normal petition. Also keep in mind that the signers could face discrimination in their professions for signing this, so it is likely something they did not sign lightly. C) See B. And it specifically relates the the collapse of the three WTC buildings and I was going to post it in that section of this article. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
A) Even if it notes titles and license numbers, "engineers" need not be licensed in all states, and there is no reasonable belief that the license numbers have been checked.
B) See C). Your point on "discrimination" may be valid, so that it may mean more than merely signing an online petition. On the other hand, the reverse might be the case.
C) False. Absolutely. I know more than an engineer who isn't specifically a structural engineer about the mathematical analysis of building collapse, and (most) architects are trained only in design to meet building codes, rather than design for actual safety and/or failure modes. It's not in their job description. I suspect I know more about building collapse than Gage.
Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
You don't think this is any more notable than a common petition? At least some of the media have noted it, and may have stuck their necks out to do it as well. Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
We're just NPOV admitting that it exists. It does seem to fall under WP:YESPOV. Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Ghost. The discussion on the A&E petition has dragged on far too long, and enables defacto censorship. As I and others see this matter, the petition clearly exists and is notable. Not to put that information in this article on 9-11 theories is counter to what Wikipedia is supposed to be all about, as I see it. I suggest that those editors using various specious arguments, designed to censor out even a mention of the petition in this Wikipedia article, can well be viewed as being in violation of WP:GAME, as it is becoming painfully clear that they will do anything to get what they want - an article where "shapeshifting aliens" are given their own chapter heading, and the petition can't get one sentence. For shame! Jusdafax 16:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps petitions should be included, but this is not any more notable than a common petition, and most of the media seem to agree. Some of the media have noted it, but they've noted other petitions: see, for example Jersey Girls. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
This talk about censorship is going nowhere. There have been numerous proposals of mentioning petitions, but they noted singling out AE991T gives them undue weight. They weren't picked up on. Instead, the discussion turned circular. Please, consider that your co-editors are also interested in improving this article. Why not mention that numerous organisation as part of the "911 Truth Movement" have released petitions in favour of further investigation on the basis of the conspiracy theories mentioned in this article? (Just noting, though, that petitions themselves are not conspiracy theories, so we'd have to somehow show that the petitions relate to this article in a way that is not OR.) (talk) 16:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Ghost, we've been through all this before. Again:
A) There is no verification that the people on the list are who they claim to be.
B) Wrong. Architects and engineers do not necessarily know more about what causes buildings to collapse than non-engineers and non-architects. Once again: Structural engineering and fire engineering are *specialist fields*, of which neither architects (which is rather an art/design field than an engineering field) nor other engineers know anything about. There is on that list *two* people who claim to be fire protection engineers. TWO
C) See A).
It is *not* more notable than any other petition. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I understand your concerns, but that does not justify removing this information from the article. It's notable, it's reliably sourced and it's relevant. Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
You need to justify *adding* it, not the other way around. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
That's what the reliable sources are for.... Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit war over AE for 9/11 Truth petition

Since no one seems to have a reason for deleting this that actually justifies its deletion, I think it needs to be undeleted. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Again: You need to justify it's *inclusion*. You have not. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Please see WP:FILIBUSTERS. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I know what you are, no need to point it out to me. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I again feel the need to back up Ghostofnemo, who as I see it makes an excellent case. Jusdafax 12:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Concur with OpenFuture. No conensus for or policy consistent with inclusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

In the absence of any credible reason for deletion, that fact that this is relevant, reliably sourced and NPOV means it should be included. The last reason for removal given was "How did this get in?". If you can't do better than that, I'm going to revert the deletion. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

  1. Read WP:BURDEN. The burden of proof is always on the editor who wants to include the information.
  2. I'm not sure I would fully agree at this point, but WP:UNDUE weight has been quoted as a reason that it's not acceptable as written. I think the one or two other petitions would need to be included.
  3. The concern that it's in the wrong article or wrong place in the article has also been brought up. You have not even attempted to address that concern, as far as I can tell.
Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  1. WP:BURDEN says, "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate, and must clearly support the material as presented in the article." So that doesn't seem to be a problem here.
  2. If reptilian shape-shifting aliens are notable, it is not undue weight to include a brief mention of this petition in the "World Trade Center collapse" subsection.
  3. This has been addressed several times. The petition is calling for a new investigation into the collapse of the WTC buildings. It is located in the "World Trade Center collapse" subsection. The controversy over the collapse is discussed there. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Once again, I fully agree with Ghostofnemo. This reasoning is direct, clear and fair. Put the information in the article. Jusdafax 13:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Being the editor who asked whether this is really the place to mention the petition(s), I concur with Ghostofnemo now that it is possible to put it into the subsection on controlled demolition. But, I also think the text should state that on the basis of that particular conspiracy theory, several organisations of the "truth movement", AE911T being one of them, issued petitions. This way, we keep the information related within the context of this article and refer to the "truth movement" and its organisations as the proponents of the conspiracy theory. Who would agree with this and does anyone have an idea of how to do it (meaning: without undue weight and OR)? (talk) 07:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
You could add a line listing the groups: "Firefighters for 9/11 Truth, Scholars for 9/11 Truth,.... are also circulating petitions calling for a new investigation." (if that is indeed the case, I don't know exactly what they are calling for) Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I noticed the A&E petition lines have been removed again. If you have a reason to oppose inclusion, please discuss it here. There was no response to my point by point response to your objections above, so I assumed the exclusionists had no response or other reasons to exclude this. I think the the petition is relevant to this section of the article because it shows there is support for a new investigation among some architects and engineers, and because they are calling for investigators to look into the possibility that explosives were involved. The deleted lines were reliably sourced and were NPOV. Please see my point by point response to your objections above. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
What is there at the moment is probably all that should be there: "Several of these groups collects signatures for petitions asking for further investigation of the September 11 attacks." The concerns about the particular petition are: (1) Most of the sources are the group itself, which cannot be considered a credible source for the existence of the petition or the credentials of the signers. (2) It is one of many petitions; ignoring the unreliable (and completely unusable in any Wikipedia article other than that of AE911T) claimed credentials, it's no more notable than any of the others. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually, you deleted four supporting references. Three were news sources and only one was the A&E petition website, which lists all the signatories with their titles and credentials, which can be verified by anyone. Just because it is one of several petitions is not a reason to exclude it. I have argued it is more notable than the others, but even if that is not the case, including the others is the solution to that problem, not keeping them all out of the article. Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
It is my very carefully considered opinion that the three solid news references, with the addition of the A&E website for clarity, meet both the spirit and the letter of the requirements of the core policies of WP:VERIFY and WP:NPOV. I will quote WP:VERIFY, a core policy, directly: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." I have previously stated I feel that the counter-arguments (to inclusion of the information Ghostofnemo has added here to this page about 9/11 conspiracy theories) strain credulity. As I see it, Ghostofnemo's case is clearly made, and is valid. To again quote from WP:VERIFY - "Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies." The 'It is one of many petitions' argument is invalid, as this is indeed notable, and the contrast to the 'shape-shifting aliens' material is quite dramatic. We are closing in on a need for fresh eyes here. Jusdafax 09:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
We can verify that there is a petition; but we can verify that there are a number of petitions. There seems no reason that this petition is more notable than the others. Moving those few sources which are not AE911T web sites or press releases to that location would be a good start toward a reasonable discussion. And it would be nice if someone other than Ghostofnemo, Judasfax, and I would comment on this section. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I am really quite confused as of right now about this discussion. The piece that was removed, is that now back up or no? I ask because in the proponents section of 9/11 conspiracy theories there is the entire list of people (AE911T, Scholars for truth & truth/justice, etc..) with their own separate but still quite informative pages. So what are we exactly arguing about here? Is it that the information from the separate pages should be merged within the 9/11 conspiracy theories article? As it stands at the time of this timestamp I don't think anything needs to be changed. Perhaps I am missing the point? -Asphyxiate.always (talk) 19:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
This petition is a call for investigation, not an assertion of a theory. It expresses a desire to learn what happened; it does not assert that its sponsors already know what happened, and it does not constitute a conspiracy theory. "Conspiracy theory" (as it is commonly used) is a pejorative term. A desire to learn and to seek answers to unanswered questions, as requested by this petition, is not a detractive attribute, and should not be implied as such. I do not think that mention of this petition belongs in this article. Another article, perhaps, but not this one. Wildbear (talk) 21:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────No need to be confused. Here is the (still-deleted) Ghostofnemo proposed closing paragraph for your easy perusal:

The group Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, an organization of professional architects, engineers, and related professions, is petitioning Congress to hold a “truly independent investigation” into the collapses of the World Trade Center towers and Building 7 on September 11, 2001. The petition demands that the possible use of explosives be fully looked into. The group claims to have collected the signatures of more than 1,000 architects and engineers.[6][7][8][9] Jusdafax 20:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The petition specifically asks investigators to look into the possibility that explosives were involved, which is considered a "conspiracy theory". Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
My problem with it is WP:WEIGHT. There are dozens if not hundreds of articles about 9/11 conspiracy theories. A handful of news articles doesn't impress me much and reeks of WP:RECENTISM. Show me something that demonstrates that this petition has had lasting impact. Just because something can be verified doesn't mean it should be in an article. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
This petition is mentioned in a section of the article about the WTC building collapses which discusses the possibility that explosives were involved in their collapse. It does not have its own section, but is mentioned as a point that applies to the controversy. It will always be notable that more than 1,000 architects and engineers signed a petition asking for an investigation into the possibility that explosives were involved. Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) (@ A Quest For Knowledge) And yet, there is that section on the "Reptilian shape-shifting aliens", and I can't help but wonder where your concern is about that prominent section, using the very same arguments you use against one well-sourced paragraph that is directly on-target - both in terms of the article's overall topic in general ('9/11 conspiracy theories') and the section's topic ('World Trade Center collapse') in particular.
While WP:WEIGHT has seeming plausibility as an argument against including Ghostofnemo's paragraph, I believe that clause is open to interpretation. And I completly disagree with your citation of WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS; neither in my view are applicable here. Jusdafax 04:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
The difference between the two sections is that reliable sources have been cited about "Reptilian shape-shifting aliens" which show it's lasting impact. Do you have any reliable sources that demonstrates that this petition has had lasting impact? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I really see many different reasons being thrown around to keep this out of the article, none of which to me seem to be very good reasons. Ghostofnemo has his paragraph well sourced and the petition list is even available for public viewing. This list contains all of the alleged signers that are architects and engineers license numbers and locations, it could be verified just from that list if one were to take the time to check. As for lasting impact, how much impact is it going to have before its recognized by someone of power? Is the argument against including this because of its prominence because it has not received enough media exposure to have many recent references? Exactly how prominent do you want it to be before it is taken seriously? I personally feel that the paragraph is well written and sourced as well as completely verifiable and at least will be as prominent as you see Reptilian Shape-shifting aliens now. Just my thoughts... - Asphyxiate.always (talk) 05:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

So now what happens? How can we move this forward? Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

As I have said a number of times, I believe the information is important and well sourced already. It seems there are those few here that will fight tooth-and-nail to exclude your three sentence paragraph of two weeks ago, but I feel your addition fits perfectly with the article and section heading and is a net positive. The next step is traditionally some type of dispute resolution, or walk away. I'll be happy to see this matter move forward and will comment further in any venue this may go to; I have never initiated a change of forum for this type of dispute and wonder which would be best, if indeed it should happen. Jusdafax 09:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
And as I have said a number of times, I believe the information is not important, and not fully sourced.
The proper venue is probably an RFC, but you first need to find whether there has been a previous RFC on this issue. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Ghostofnemo/Jusdafax: As you are wrong, and you with "move forward" mean "we get as we want", we probably can't. You have still not in any way demonstrated that this particular petition is more noteworthy than any other petition, and you have rejected my compromise. You are trying to make edits against consensus without attempting to understand why the consensus is against you. That will fail. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
There is clearly no consensus against including this if you look at the last Rfc above. I'd say a majority supported inclusion and a significant minority opposed inclusion, but for reasons the inclusionists found unconvincing. We've discussed this without results. We've done Rfcs. What is the next step in the process? Because as it sits now, the minority have trumped the majority with their aggressive deletions. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the RfC doesn't show a consensus against inclusion, but it certainly doesn't show a consensus in favor of inclusion. The burden of proof is on the editor adding the material, so it should be out. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Once again, Ghost: You need to prove that it should be included, not the other way around. Also: WP:NOTAVOTE. Consensus, ie those with any sort of argument, is clearly against inclusion. The main claim "A thousand engineers makes it notable" doesn't hold up. Wikipdeia does not say "It's notable if X engineers signed it". Of the "inclusionists", there is only one person that bases the argument on anything else that that it's "clearly notable" (which clearly isn't clear at all) or "Hey it's a 1000 engineers". At the same time, the "exclusionists" have a whole host of arguments against inclusion. There are at least 4 different arguments against, and 8 people doing them. So there is clearly no consensus to include it. It's time you start listening to others, or if you don't want to do that, simply give up. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't take you seriously anymore, first of all because you're rude, and second because just a second ago you said "consensus is against you" and when I pointed out your obvious mis-statement of fact, it now became "there is clearly no consensus to include it", which is more accurate, but completely different than your first statement. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
If you had prefaced your change with, "Well, I guess your right..." or "Perhaps I spoke too hastily..." or "What I meant to say was...." I wouldn't have been a jerk and pointed this out. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Haha, you are so cute when you are angry. To add what you want to add, you need consensus. So no consensus means no adding. Hence, when there is no consensus to add, consensus is against you. It's the same thing. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I beg to differ. There is no consensus because editors have not reached any kind of agreement. Since there is no consensus for or against inclusion, we have an edit war going on. Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
There is no agreement because you don't listen. And you need consensus to add, and you don't, which is the reason you get reverted. Basically, we have an edit war because you refuse to accept that you are in the wrong, so you edit war instead. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)