Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories/Archive 14

Remote controlled

Not to suggest that I buy into this train of thought, but one notable theory is the concept that the planes were remotely controlled to their end result. A stunningly "foretelling" version of this would be the infamous pilot of The Lone Gunmen which displayed an airliner being operated via microchip and antenna devices - the same way in which cars may be remotely controlled. This is an idea that seems to be gaining more and more popularity and, frankly, I'd add a sub-category for it myself if the page weren't currently locked. Any users who feel up to adding it? --AWF

Yeh, I'll give it a go sometime. finding a detailed source might be hard though, most people just dip into the idea. Also, should we have a section for the twin towers missile theory? it's basically the same as the pentagon missile theory, but even weirder. there are ideas like that a hologram of a plane was used to disguise a missile and whatever... i'll try and find a source, and if i do and you guys think it's notable enough then i'll do a section on it. DanCrowter 11:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any technological impediments to remote access piloting. I'm sure aircraft have been designed with such controls as an antihijacking concept. In this case it is being used to hijack! Loose Change cites a known instance of the technology from the 70s in a US military project. There may be many tactical complicatins that need to be explored for realisability. Such as I'm guessing you'd want to immobalise the crew. Would you do it on the plane by installing hiding gassing tanks and what chemical would you use? Would you do it by ghosting the plane and blocking out all communications? What communications do we have from the planes? All four black-boxes were also said to have damaged recordings were they not? I think that all but Shanksville were said to be completely destroyed. Or were the passengers landed at one airport while a ghost plane took over their transponder and continued on to fullfill the mission masked as the originating plane?

But is there any actual evidence that this occurred? Etchalon 07:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely! The instructor who taught Hani Hanjour (the pentagon pilot) claimed that he was a terrible pilot, and that it was obvious he would never make it in aviation. However, the people in the control room on 911 said that they thought Flight 77 was a military plane, because of the moves it was doing in mid air. as well, flight 175 (second tower plane) appears to do a turn which is practically impossible. I'm gonna write a section on it soon, but i might need a hand with the sources. DanCrowter 15:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorists interpret "thought Flight 77 was a military plane" as "was doing skillful aerobatics". But in reality the quote from the aircraft controller who followed Flight 77 from takeoff to impact continues: "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe." I.e. the radar blip was not flying like a skilled pilot, but rather insanely erratically for a passenger plane. Or are there reliable sources that support another interpretation? Weregerbil 16:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Energy Weapons & Mini-Nukes

Heh, you guys forgot to mention these notable conspiracy theories. The Founder and Co-Chair of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, James H. Fetzer, thinks they're notable theories, so I think they should be included here. Take a look at this. Morton devonshire 23:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Yup. Definitely a 9/11 conspiracy theory from a well-known conspiracy theorist. Where should it go? Tbeatty 20:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

We might describe the theory in a section right before that about the missile pods, outline the essential facts of the recent controversy between Fetzer and Jones, and refer people to 9/11 Truth Movement. I think the primary coverage of their dispute should be there. If we have to have all these pages, they should be more than pov forks. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't nukes give off an amount of radiation?

I think we should turn it into a sub-section into both the section on the contolled demolition hypothesis, and another, more deatailed, section in the full article on the same. This is because it is technically another part of the demolition idea. And about the radiation thing, yes, they proabably would. But most conspiracy theories are based on this kind of stuff. DanCrowter 13:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It should go in the less common theories section. Yes a couple of notables have suggested this but at this time it is not a common theme in the public discussion of the matter. The developments in the 9/11 scholars for truth has the potential to change this but this defiantly has not happened yet. 69.114.117.103 06:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)

Um...I hesitate to wade into this article, but the idea that a "mini-nuke" was used to demolish the WTC is easily falsifiable. Any nuclear detonation, even a small one, will leave behind a large quantity of very detectable radioactive material. Any idiot with a geiger counter could detect the radiation; however, the Heck, the radation levels at the Trinity Test Site are still an order of magnitude higher than normal, 50 years later (not nearly enough to make short visits dangerous, though). Would it be considered original research to note these two well-established facts?--Robert Merkel 06:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

"hesitate to wade into this article" is not a Wikipedia dictionary. Unless you have a reputable cite for it it is Original Research. If that cite does not exist currently you will have to wait for the possibility that this theory will become more mainstream then at that point I am sure there will be debunker's that will not be hesitant to point to your explanation. The point of the article as hard as it seems at times is not a point counterpoint arguments about conspiracy/alternate theories. It is to describe what they are and describing what they are arguably entails bringing out supporters reasoning. The counterpoint arguments are there to explain reaction to those particular theories. If there has been no reaction to a theory there is no need to list counterpoint arguments 69.114.117.103 20:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)

How about this? --Robert Merkel 00:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that this comes from a "conspiracy theory" website makes this a really good cite. 69.114.117.103 06:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)

Building Seven (con't...again)

(Just picking up at the current state of the discussion to keep things in order. I've left these comments above as well.)

...Legge analyzed the "final" collapse sequence and just that. That seemed enough for him to state his assumptions about the cause. You find it not's enough, ok, let the readear decide for himself. I, for example, find his explanation much more plausible than wild theories about innards collapsing,ground shaking, outer walls standing. Anyway, apart from what you and I belive, there is no place for a hidden, false implication that Legge's analysis is in contradiction with FEMA's timing, as it is not ("apples and oranges" - it couldn't be said better). If you feel that 37s remark has to be there, then let's not put it in opposition to 7 seconds. My proposed edit would be to replace "according to conspiracy theorists the collapse took 7 seconds" with a statement of an easily observable fact that roof of the building collapsed in approx. 7 seconds to the ground. SalvNaut 21:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You misattribute my description of the collapse; I was describing NIST's working hypothesis of WTC 7 collapse. See page 25 of this. WTC 7 was a steel tube inside another steel tube. The inner tube fell first, during the first 30 seconds ("vertical progression"), and the outer tube was pulled in after it by the connecting floor structure ("horizontal progression"). This very page of this very report has already been referred to below. As to what conspiracy theorists think, please remember: sources! The Legge text describes a sudden collapse that lasts 7 seconds at the acceleration of gravity, with no initial "slow start". FEMA and NIST describe the collapse starting 30 seconds earlier, progressing up and sideways, considerably slower than free fall. We describe both sourced views. Weregerbil 13:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

(repeat over)

FEMA and NIST taken together describe a collapse starting 30 seconds earlier. But the NIST document you provide does not mention specific times. If NIST isn't correcting FEMA (as is has before) it took the collapse 30 seconds to progress up to the east penthouse. The "sudden collapse" afterwards is not in dispute between NIST/FEMA and Legge/Jones. Keep in mind that that first roughly 30 seconds result in (but do not yet amount to) a "disproportionate collapse". NIST is proposing a slow, progressive local collapse, followed by the observed sudden, fast, global (and therefore disproportionate) collapse. NIST does not offer a time "considerably slower than free fall", it offers an explanation for why the whole building finally came down in free fall that does not refer to explosives.--Thomas Basboll 13:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

EVIDENCE AND AFTERMATH link [unavailable]

Everybody should look at the very interstingly different new link in the Debunking Conspiracies section "A study of the primary source evidence against conspiracy". If it stays it should be moved to the less common theories and renamed "An argument for for the accidental setting off of benign pre placed explosives”. He thinks they were put there because after ’93 the Port Authority knew the towers would be attacked again so they wanted to make the collapse less dangerous 69.114.117.103 04:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no move. Points have been argued, and both sides have good points, but the clear consensus here is to keep the article where it is. —Mets501 (talk) 03:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed name change to "9/11 (alternative theories)

"Conspiracy theory" is a highly contested term, but there can be little doubt that it is rarely, if ever, used to refer to a version of events the speaker believes to be true, except when it is used with a bitter sense of irony. Moreover the label "conspiracy theorist" is nearly always applied in a way that is condescending or even abusive. "Conspiracy theorists" as the conspiracy theory article tells us, are at best timid thinkers who are unwilling to face up to the compiexity and ambiguity of real life. At worst they are psychotic. In talk:conspiracy theory itself one finds a number of contributors who cannot conceal their contempt for the timewasting kooks they believe themselves to be dealing with.

In talk:conspiracy theory various other definitions turn up that are ostensibly neutral, for instance that "conspiracy theories" are "not falsifiable". But if we consider the two possible explanations of the death of Alexander Litvinenko we find that neither the theory that he was poisoned by Russian agents in order to silence him and to deter others, nor that he was poisoned by western agents in order to discredit the Putin regime, is falsifiable. All we can do in such a case is draw up a hypothetical balance sheet of political gains and losses for both sides and make an educated guess. Yet never have I heard the theory that Putin's people did it being called a "conspiracy theory". On the other hand can anyone doubt that the mainstream politician or journalist foolhardy enough to suggest that, say, MI6 did it would be pilloried into oblivion? Quite clearly the "conspiracy theorist" is simply anybody who holds the self-evidently false belief that people on "our" side can and do carry out the kinds of crimes the people on "their" side are generally believed to perpetrate.

Is it appropriate for Wikipedia to ridicule dissenting points of view based on such absurd criteria as this? If you think so then please oppose the name change. Ireneshusband 12:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

See a spade, call it a spade. Conspiracy theory is an accurate term for this, widely used in mainstream media (WP:RS). Call this by the term by which it is known, not by the term conspiracy theorists wish it was known. Weregerbil 12:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Conspiracy theories is a significantly POV term, pretty much always used in a derogatory sense. Even though it's used in mainstream media, aren't we supposed to be NPOV? Media does not have that obligation, so even if they use a term, it doesn't mean we have to. I think that in the interests of NPOV, it should be changed to alternative theories. Alternative theories is a neutral term that doesn't imply a favor for one side. But I know there are going to be a lot of POV pushers who will fight it, saying that the theories are absurd and they deserve the title of conspiracy theories... but that's POV, and I hope that there will be some posters here who can rise above that. .V. 01:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't support this change for the same reason I didn't support the attempt to change the name to 9/11 conspiracy hoaxes, I don't think such a change is truly motived by NPOV. I believe this is just another in a long line of editors on both sides of the issue attempting to use any kind of edge, no matter how small, they can to try to sway the opinions of those who will read this page. 9/11 Conspiracy Theories is by far the most common name used to describe these theories. For a quick yet simple example go to google, search different assortments of 9/11 Conspiracy Theories agaisnt different assortments of 9/11 alternative theories, in every case I've seen so far 9/11 Conspiracy theories is by far the leader. Maybe it isn't right that the common name has a stigma attached to it, but even if that is the case, we should still go with the more common name. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for social, political, or cultural change, we should be acting more like scribes, less like activists, and just stick to the regular names, terms, and definitions. --Wildnox(talk) 03:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

From WP:NC: "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." --Wildnox(talk) 03:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The article title of "Alternative Theories" has no bias whatsoever. I'm not certain what your concern is. .V. 03:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

So you think there is no secondary motivation at all in changing the title from the version that is overwhelmingly more common to a version which is far less common in direct opposition to wikipedia policy? My point isn't that "Alternative Theories" is or isn't biased, because that isn't my concern, my concern is the rational use of the common term and wikipedia policy. --Wildnox(talk) 03:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia policy you've cited seems to be more oriented toward the grammar and sentence structure used in the titles. I think the NPOV policy is more important than that in this case, as there's no real grammar dispute. I mean, what part of that policy specifically addresses this? .V. 03:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

See the Conspiracy Theory article. By definition, these are conspiracy theories. Therefore, they should be labelled as such. It isn't our job not to use loaded terms - its our job to present reality in a neutral manner. Given:

1. This is the most commonly used term for the subject, according to the naming rules this is what it should be called.
2. They fit the definition of a conspiracy theory.
3. They are described as conspiracy theories by all RS's.

If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands. These are conspiracy theories. Regardless of trying to relabel them, that is what they are and that is what they are called by the vast majority of the populace. Titanium Dragon 04:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Honestly I don't see any serious violation of NPOV in using the most common name as policy dictates. There isn't a single mention of NPOV or POV in the naming conventions. Why, because the rule of thumb defaults to the more common name. I don't think there is anywhere near the situation where we would need to work around established policy. It's not as if the current title is "A WHOLE BUNCH OF LIES ABOUT 9/11" or "9/11 hoaxes", in both cases I would say there is a big enough case to change the title, but those aren't the cases. It's just the most common name and I believe we should follow the current naming conventions.--Wildnox(talk) 04:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theories are generally called 9/11 conspiracy theories. From Popular Mechanics' Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts (ISBN 158816635X) to the Washington Post's 9/11 Conspiracy Theorist to Leave Brigham Young,[1] this is the accepted terminology. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It is true that 9/11 conspiracy theories are often called conspiracy theories, but this does not make it less of a value judgement. Popular Mechanics called them conspiracy theories because it intended to debunk them. Ditto just about everyone else who uses the term. The Popular Mechanics article in particular was a particularly dishonest piece of journalism and relied heavily on defamatory language to drive its lies home[2]. Very few people who believe so-called conspiracy theories use the term themselves. Derogatory naming is part of the debunking process.

The final insult to conspiracists is that when a conspiracy theory turns out to be true, it is hastily redefined by many people as investigative journalism. Watergate, Iran-Contra, and the like are just good stories.[3]

Please provide even one example of a mainstream news or current affairs story in which the writer or presenter explicity, and without reluctance or irony, uses the term "conspiracy theory" to describe something that s/he at that time holds to be true. If you cannot, then you must accept that to use the term in the title of an article is to prejudge the content.

To address a practical points raised by Wildnox, changing the name to "alternative theories" will have no detrimental effect on the functioning of the wiki because, after renaming, the old article name will redirect to the new one. The difference is simply that the title of the article, when you get to it, will be different.

As for Titanium Dragon' assertion that "conspiracy theory" is clearly defined in its own wikipedia article, a quick glance at the talk:conspiracy theory is enough to show that the direction of this article is highly contested. In any case, no reputable academic would ever cite Wikipedia as an authority on anything, so neither should we. Titanium Dragon says we shouldn't use "loaded terms", but "conspiracy theory" is undoubtedly a loaded term because it implies that the "theory" is false and the that person who believes it is a contemptible nutcase. Ireneshusband 10:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly right. .V. 14:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The game you propose (the presenter of a mainstream news article must say he is a conspiracy theorist) fails in a few ways. First, a news story is not about the writer of the news article, so finding a story that details the personal beliefs of the writer is not a particularly reasonable demand. Second, please do not make games and rules about what other people must believe or accept. Third, why the game is moot in the first place: what conspiracy theorists wish they were called is not much of a factor when deciding what they are called. Weregerbil 15:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you actually read what I said? I simply asked for one instance of a journalist using the term "conspiracy theory" to describe something the journalist held to be true. For instance we know by what they wrote that the editors of Popular Mechanics do not (at least outwardly) hold what they call "conspiracy theories" to be true.

Yes I actually did read what you said; my disagreeing with you is not the result of not reading what you said, it is due to me not agreeing what you said. I do not think mainstream news stories are in the habit of being exposés on their writers' personal private opinions. That would be the difference between a news story and an opinion column or a blog. A news article generally does not describe the writer's view of the world; demanding a list of such articles is not particularly useful. Weregerbil 23:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

If someone says that the Twin Towers were brought down as a result of aircraft impact then we know that that is what they (appear to) believe. When has a mainstream journalist who appears to believe that a particular account of events is, or at least has a good chance of being true, referred to that account of events as a conspiracy theory? For example, has any such journalist said "We don't yet know which of the two conspiracy theories accounting for the death of Alexander Litvinenko is true"? Do I need to make this any clearer? Ireneshusband 00:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

So we need a mainstream news story that states, with no "maybe"s or "so-and-so claims" or "there is a theory that says", that the towers were demolished by explosives, and then later in the story that statement is described as a conspiracy theory. Can you find a mainstream news story that satisfies the first part, e.g. a CNN story that flat out says "the towers were wired for explosives and the planes had nothing to do with it". I'm still curious as to how a mainstream news story picks a fringe theory and makes an unqualified statement that it is true. Opinion pieces and blogs, sure, but real mainstream news like you asked. Weregerbil 20:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Weregerbil, I have taken a long browse at your various contributions to wikipedia and it is obvious to me that you are not stupid. So why on earth do you so persistently misrepresent my question in such a gross fashion? I most certainly have not asked for an instance of a mainstream news organisation in any way dissenting from the official 9/11 story. What I have asked is this: Please provide at least one instance of a mainstream journalist, while appearing to believe that an account of a particular set of events might possibly be true, referring to that account of events as a conspiracy theory? For instance is it even remotely conceivable that a mainstream news outlet would ever use the term "official 9/11 conspiracy theory" to describe the contents of the 9/11 Commission Report? That is just an example of course. The likelihood of Putin's mob being behind Alexander Litvinenko's murder could be another. Or Watergate for that matter. My challenge is very clear. Now please could somebody answer the question?

• Disagree Have we not just been through this Proposed name change vote and argued the fact that they are conspiracy theories. Lets be honest, the average Joe on the Street would not know what you mean if you said alternative theories, but mention conspiracy theories and they will understand. "Snorkel | Talk" 16:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Then redirect "…conspiracy theory" to "…alternative theory" and no one will get lost. And let's be even more honest, the average Joe in the Street might no exactly what you mean by "conspiracy theory" and be able to say whether X or Y is a conspiracy theory or not, but ask him to define conspiracy theory in a way that includes X and excludes Y and may not find that nearly so easy. Ireneshusband 23:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

No, why not redirect "…alternative theory" to …conspiracy theory" , then the few people who would seek alternative theory would find it, and the majority seeking the CT would not be affected. "Snorkel | Talk" 08:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

While I think Ireneshusband's concerns are sound on one level, I think 9/11 CTs are a special case. Most of them have goodnaturedly taken the label upon themselves. Most playfully say that its a matter of which conspiracy theory you find more plausible. Michael Ruppert took issue, not with the word "conspiracy" but the word "theory" ("I deal in conspiracy fact," he said. Vanity Fair's coverage [4] was rather fair, I'd say. So I think I agree with those who say that "conspiracy theories" is what they're called--and this goes on both sides.--Thomas Basboll 16:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Mike Ruppert's "conspiracy fact" is a fairly explicit denial of what is implicit in "conspiracy theory", namely that the theory is, by definition, false. For the same reason Michael Parenti has used the term "conspiracy actuality". I have no trouble with the word "conspiracy" unless it is attached to another word such as "theory" or "nut". For instance I would not find a title such as "9/11: allegations of official conspiracy" all that objectionable, although I think it would be too limited in its scope to be usable here. Ireneshusband 00:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Disagree How many times do we have to go through this in a one year span? I propose that this proposal only be allowed once per year. See Conspiracy Theory and Fanaticism. Conspiracy theories are the intellectual toxic waste poisoning contemporary democratic civil society.--Cberlet 16:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

"See… Fanaticism." You just can't resist those personal jibes can you? Shame on you. Ireneshusband 23:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

If people generally had Cberlet's attitude to CTs then the title would of course have to be changed.--Thomas Basboll 16:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

What I find problematic here is that the present title serves to sustain this kind of attitude. I'm sure Thomas that you would agree that with the present knowledge available, with the present account, at least some of 9/11 conspiracy theories (CD, air defense standdown, full foreknowledge (partial foreknowledge is a fact already)) are indeed alternative theories in full meaning of this phrase. I find the primary role of encyclopedia to provide the reader with proper outlook on every topic ("mhm, so this works this way,... oh and this we still don't know,... mhm, and this is discussed" etc.). On the other hand, the article itself tries to provide proper attitude, I hope. So if a hypothetical reader allows himself to be prejudiced by the title only, maybe it's not worth to care for that... I'm not sure, though. SalvNaut 18:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Disagree It is not for us to worry about whether an articles title sustains an attitude. or not, just because you dont like the attitude, does not make it wrong "Snorkel | Talk" 08:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The title of an article is not determined by anyone's attitude, it is determined by what the subject of the article is usually called. ("Of course" :-) Weregerbil 17:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I find this statement wrong. First of all, in most cases the title of any article is in fact determined by its author's attitude. Secondly, when it comes to neutral reporting (that is what Wikipedia tries to provide), the title should be neutral and should serve ONLY to identify topic, not to imply any bias (with controversial topics this is generally not true for phrases "the subject of the article is usually called" with). While the identification part is well covered with the present title (it always can be with the use of redirects), when it comes to bias I find Ireneshusband's arguments very strong (qt:"Please provide even one example of a mainstream news or current affairs story in which the writer or presenter explicity, and without reluctance or irony, uses the term "conspiracy theory" to describe something that s/he at that time holds to be true. If you cannot, then you must accept that to use the term in the title of an article is to prejudge the content."). I support the proposed change on this basis. SalvNaut 18:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Extremely aggravating, all this terminology… islamofascism and similar crap… conspiracy, hoax or alternate theories? I'd certainly go for last alternative… of course that doesn’t mean that there won't be room for an article about holographic blue screened mini nukes which stick to the pejorative connotation of CT tin foils, lemmings & whatchyaagonnadoaboutit perspectives… Let me share a thought;

"The weak version, which does not directly imply a conspiracy, merely suspects that government agencies, including the military and intelligence communities, dealt incompetently with the 9/11 attacks. It may go as far as suggesting that the 9/11 Commission Report covered up these alleged incompetencies and even that part of the incompetence involved inappropriate reactions to advanced warnings."

What sort of sentence is this? Why is this sentence here, in article about CT? What's with these suspecting? Government agencies, including the military and intelligence communities did show colossal incompetence on that day from every single perspective. So what kind of wording is this? "Is this a real world or exercise?"; Three different and contradictory timelines of NORAD response times? Lie after lie after lie… Omissions of testimonies, 30 seconds response footnotes and 1 hour & 20 minutes of flying circus, and we are suspecting? And then this going way out of line and suggesting that 9/11 omission covered alleged incompetencies? Or this actions like removing relevant data "until it can be merged elsewhere." Wrong actions, wrong wording, wrong place… wrong. Let's just stick to the facts. I agree with proposed name change. Lovelight 18:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Where do you think that the information that I removed from that article should be placed? I did try, with great effort, to keep the information that was on the criticism page intact when I merged into the criticism section of the report page. The information that I removed subsequently from the criticism section did not belong there, as it was not criticism of the report (at least from an outside source). I agree the information that I did remove could be used to criticise the report, but it cannot be our job to actually do that. Doing that would qualify as original research. I have since found "Prior Warnings" criticism from Rep. Waxman that can be used, and I plan to put in later. If you want to go ahead and do that, here is the relevant link [5]. Be sure to also look at the letter to "charmain Davis pdf " link on that page, as that is the document I was planning on referencing. I am really doing my best to ensure that criticism of the report is really criticism of the report, and that it is not our criticism of the report. I feel that is very important. I believe that if I did not remove that "Prior Warning" section and move it to a "lost and found" (btw, can you get to it, I just assumed that anybody could and the page wasn't private), that it would be removed anyway, and possibly "lost" in the page history somewhere (where it is a little bit harder to dig out, or even determine that it's there in the first place). I'm sorry if I am rambling on, but I like to defend my actions somewhat vigorously. If you can help me find a place to put what I took out of the criticism section, I would be most obliged. I apologise if my action was possibly construed as a form of censorship (or similar). I took great pains to try and keep the action from appearing that way. Please take a close look at what I removed. If you can show me that any of the references are actually criticising the report for omitting it, I would be more than happy to put them back in. For convenience, I'll make a link here User:Umeboshi/Lost and found/Prior Warnings section. While digging this out, I found no link for the lost&found on my main user page. I will fix that after posting this. Again, I'm really sorry if I did something wrong. It was not my intention to cause trouble, rather, I wanted to keep unwanted trouble away. Umeboshi 00:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I made the above mentioned link on my user page now. I also pulled up firefox to test availability from an anon account, and it seems to work ok. I looked again, and the very first reference is from 16Jan2002. This is well before the commission was even started. There is now way that this reference can be critical of the report. That is the main reason I took it out. I think that it is important information, so I did at least try to put it somewhere. Umeboshi 01:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theory" is, insofar as it is anything, a narrative genre. It is defined, according to the people who think it is a useful category, by its various qualities, such as the way it provides totalising simplistic explanations, appeals to people's paranoid urges, gets bogged down in technical details or is "unfalsifiable". "Alternative theory" is a much looser term implying little more than that what is thus labelled is not a view favoured by the "majority" (however you define that).

To call all dissenting interpretations of the 9/11 events "conspiracy theories" is to say that they all, without exception possess the defining qualities of a "conspiracy theory". This would mean that the view that "the Bush adminstration knew it was going to happen and did nothing to stop it" is a totalising, simplistic and technically convoluted view just as would be that the shape-shifting Illuminati space-lizards did it with holograms, bumble planes and mini-nukes. Has anyone actually demonstrated this? In what way is such a view totalising, simplistic and more technically convoluted than the official explanation? If this cannot be demonstrated then "conspiracy theory" cannot be an adequate container for all the non-standard accounts of 9/11 and must be abandoned.

And please do not respond to this challenge by redefining "conspiracy theory" to suit. Either it implies all the qualities ascribed to it or it doesn't. There is no inbetween. Anyone who makes scornful or contemptuous jibes at those they see as conspiracy theorists, as many of the contributors to discussions such as these do, is disqualified from asserting that "conspiracy theorist" is a relatively neutral term. Furthermore anyone who does this is also disqualified from asserting that the use of the term in the title of an article such as this is not profoundly offensive to people such as me who believe some of those "conspiracy theories".

That "conspiracy theorists" do sometimes try to work with that label, often to turn it back upon their accusers (hence "official conspiracy theory" etc.) does not justify its use. Consider, for example, the various African American uses of the word "nigger". This would in no way justify calling the African American article "Nigger" (I know that "nigger" would be inappropriate for other reasons as well, but that is beside the point). I'm not suggesting that "conspiracy theorist" is at all as offensive as "nigger", but highly offensive it is nonetheless.

Speaking for myself, I occasionally describe myself to people as a "conspiracy theorist", but the reason for this is simply to communicate how it feels, not only to hold beliefs about the way our world works that are sometimes overwhelmingly horrible, but to be marginalised and ridiculed for them to boot. With this in mind, if all those who oppose my proposal can convince me that they truly respect my views, and that they consider me to be an intelligent, fair-minded and thoughtful person, I will withdraw it. Ireneshusband 23:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Disagree, You keep using Straw man arguments to sustain your case for this name change, and you give the impression in your statements that you feel this is a "you" versus "them" issue "if all those who oppose my proposal can convince me that they truly respect my views". Looking through this discussion page, I dont think I have found any personal attacks on you or your character, this isnt a personal issue, please don't try and make it one, or escalate this civil discussion into a slanging match. "Snorkel | Talk" 08:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Then what did cberlet mean by "See Conspiracy Theory and Fanaticism." if not that I, and people like me, are "fanatics"? What was the vote on the name change to "911 conspiracy hoaxes" about, if not to mock the tinfoil hat brigade? The point I am making is that the claim that the term "conspiracy theory" does not automatically prejudge that those who hold it are driven by a combination of malice, stupidity and psychiatric illness, nor that their views are, without exception false, is revealed for the absurdity it is when it is put forward by people who conduct themselves in such a way. If the label "conspiracy theorist" were not accompanied by the kind of childish and arrogant attempts at character assassination that we routinely witness in forums such as this, then it would cease to be a stigma by which dissidents could be punished and potential dissidents deterred. If this were the case then neither I nor anyone else here would have a problem with it. So yes, it is a personal matter because others have made it so. And furthermore, the doublethink required in order to deny this is remarkably reminiscent of the doublethink required to believe that a term such as "cospiracy theory, which is never used in the mainstream media except for the purpose of asserting that what it refers to is false, simple-minded and delusional is an sufficiently neutral descriptor for a field as diverse as the non-mainstream accounts of 9/11.

Is it not absurd that, while the guidelines for article content demand that all but the most extremely marginal opinions be represented within the article body, even if only briefly, that the title should be one that, a priori, denies their validity outright? Ireneshusband 10:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep as is -- no endorsement for name change. We don't get to choose the name -- we just get to parrot what reputable sources call it, and they call it a conspiracy theory. That trumps all efforts to apply your original research. Morton devonshire 01:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

"what reputable sources call it..."

There is no "it". The range of interpretations of the 9-11 events is vast, even when you don't count the official story. They clearly vary greatly in their style, content and methodology. At one end of the spectrum you have "They knew about it but let it happen" and at the other you have all the pods, mini-nukes etc. The efforts to debunk 9/11 "conspiracy theories" that I am aware of (such as the Popular Mechanics article) have only addressed a subset of these. In general they have concentrated on the more extreme technical theories while ignoring the more mundane facts. For instance debunkers often address the theory that no plane hit the Pentagon, but they don't ever seem to acknowledge how odd it is that General Myers was rewarded for NORAD's catastrophic performance on the day with a promotion, or how odd it is that a several-hundred-page legal document as radical as the Patriot Act could have been draughted and finalised in little more than a month. If a whole swathe of dissenting opinions on 9/11 (i.e. those at the "they let it happen" end of the spectrum) has not been addressed by the debunkers, then there is no justification for calling it "conspiracy theory", with all its pejorative connotations, because its tinfoilhatness has not been established,

So no, I am not doing "original research" here. I am in fact doing two things:

1. I am pointing out that the belief that all significantly dissenting opinions about what happened on 9/11 are, in the way of "conspiracy theories", fundamentally flawed, is not supported by any research that I am aware of.
2. I am saying that the term "conspiracy theory" is inherently derisive and amounts to an ad hominem attack of a kind that has no place in wikipedia. How can this be called original research on my part when the history of cruel and boorish jibes of some of those who are now arguing to keep the title as it is, show us that they already understand this only too well? Ireneshusband 10:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

No name change. Please read what I write. I did NOT say we were to avoid usage of loaded terms. In fact, I said quite the opposite: "It isn't our job not to use loaded terms - its our job to present reality in a neutral manner." Calling these things anything other than conspiracy theories is to NOT present reality in a neutral manner. Some people are under the incredibly mistaken impression that NPOV gives equal credence to every viewpoint; in fact, it does nothing of the sort. NPOV is a neutral point of view. We use reputable sources. Our reputable sources call these 9/11 conspiracy theories. Ergo, we are required to use the term as it is the most common term for it, even among experts! The consensus of our sources is that these ARE conspiracy theories. We are to use the most common name for it. The most common name is 9/11 conspiracy theories. Not hoaxes, not "hypothesis", not "alternate theories for 9/11". All of these are POV. 9/11 conspiracy theories is not. According to the rules of Wikipedia, this article should be called 9/11 conspiracy theories. As I pointed out, they ARE conspiracy theories, and to label them anything else is disingenous. Before arguing for a name change, please read the rules of Wikipedia and understand them. They are clear on this point. And, as an aside, I've had numerous professors at a top 20 university cite Wikipedia as a reference. Titanium Dragon 10:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It is important to note that these are conventions, not rules carved in stone. As Wikipedia grows and changes, some conventions that once made sense may become outdated, and there may be cases where a particular convention is "obviously" inappropriate. But when in doubt, follow convention. (Wikipedia:Naming_conventions)

Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. (Wikipedia:Naming_conventions)

Many older articles use the term Mormonism in reference to Latter Day Saint doctrines, belief systems, or cultures. For example:

* Mormonism and Christianity * Mormonism and Judaism

However, this term is now discouraged because it may been seen as inaccurate or offensive by members of several Latter Day Saint movement denominations, such as the Community of Christ. {wikipedia:Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints))

In other words, while going with what the majority of English speakers would recognise is the general guideline, this is not set in stone, and situations may arise where other considerations take prececence. That an article may cause offence has already been established as just such a case.

That said, the reason for the guideline about going with what the majority of speakers would recognise is in order to avoid ambiguity and make linking to the articles "second nature". Now even if "9/11 (alternative theories)" is not the term most familiar to English speakers, I fail to see how anyone could be confused by it. In any case, as I have said several times already, since the old title will redirect to the new title, there is absolutely no reason whatever for anybody to get confused of lost, any more than a person looking for "Mormonism" would be confused to find an article on "Latter Day Saints". Surely the fact that "Mormonism" is considered offensive is just the kind of information somebody would go to such an article to find out.

Descriptive names

Choose a descriptive name for an article that does not carry POV implications.

For instance, what do we call the controversy over Qur'an handling at Guantanamo Bay? The article is located at Qur'an desecration controversy of 2005. Note that the title makes no statement about who is the (more) guilty party: it does not "give away" that conclusion; in fact the article itself draws no conclusion. Similarly, the article on the September 11, 2001 attacks does not assign responsibility for the attacks in the article name. (from wikipedia:Naming conflict)

Clearly the guidelines favour titles that do not prejudge the conclusions. Since "conspiracy theories" does do so, it fails in this regard. "Alternative theories" on the other hand does not imply that the theories are right, wrong, methodologically sound, methodologically flawed or anything else beyond that those theories are not normally considered to be in the mainstream.

Equally, the prospects for achieving long-term consensus can be complicated by the fact that contributors change over time. At one point, a certain group of contributors may agree to use one name, but this group only represents the view of the particular sub-community of editors that exists at that time. When new contributors arrive, they are faced with the choice of reopening the discussion (thus diminishing the weight of the opinions of their predecessors), or sticking to the old consensus (which deprives the new contributors of a chance to have their say). In short, no consensus represents the voices of all the contributors to a given article. Following a permanently established objective procedure that does not rely on a fleeting consensus gets around this problem. (wikipedia:Naming conflict)

This means, among other things, that it is unfair to blame newly arrived editors when the same naming debate comes up for the umpteenth time. The guidelines that exist to prevent this happening clearly favour names that are not offensive and that do not prejudge the various arguments and positions outlined within them. All I ask is that the article be renamed to something that is reasonably self-explanatory, that doesn't cause offense and that doesn't prejudge its content. Why is this so hard for so many of you? Ireneshusband 13:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Because, quite simply put, the article name is correct and you are in error. Please note that Wikipedia is not a democracy; policy is important. You are not bringing up anything new, and it has been previously agreed-upon that the name is correct. Unless you bring up something new, then there is absolutely no reason to restart the debate and it does nothing to help Wikipedia. The purpose of the talk page is to improve the article, and this discussion is unproductive. On the Evolution page, Creationists who come in to troll/gripe about the article have their posts archived and a reference is given to why they're archived - its been discussed to death before. You're trying to get the article named incorrectly - calling it "alternate theories" is far more likely to cause offense than "conspiracy theories" is, and an article name causing offense isn't even a reason to change its name, as Wikipedia is not censored. No, Wikipedia is Wikipedia, and our RS's call them conspiracy theories, they are conspiracy theories, and the common name for them is conspiracy theories. Thus, unless you can come up with a convincing reason to change the name (i.e. that the article title is inaccurate, that they're not conspiracy theories, or that now everyone calls them spam) the discussion is pointless. Titanium Dragon 09:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep as is: We've had this discussion before, and no new arguements or evidence have been provided. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

That completely beside the point. The conclusions reached in previous iterations of the argument are in clear defiance of wikipedia guidelines, as I have established above. The guidelines also state that a consensus reached at any particular point in time can never be a consensus of all past, present and future users and that therefore it is to be expected that controversies will be revisited again and again. Clear guidelines exist to allow a way out of this situation. I have cited some of them above, but you are unwilling to follow them. That is your fault and not mine. Ireneshusband 20:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strongest possible oppose. NPOV doesn't mean mincing words to make sure we don't offend anyone's sensibilities. All these "alternative" theories have one thing in common; they alledge a conspiracy by the US Government/CIA/Jews/whoever to hide what really happened. Ergo, they are conspiracy theories. FiggyBee 14:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The guidelines I have quoted above say that to avoid causing offence is a perfectly good reason to change a name. Ireneshusband 20:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Tom Harrison has emphatically stated (in talk:Conspiracy theory if I remember right) that believing in a "conspiracy" and believing in a "conspiracy theory" are not the same thing at all. Please sort this out between you instead of trotting out whichever half-baked definition suits the purpose of the moment. Ireneshusband 20:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck! These are conspiracy theories in every sense of the term. Reliable sources consistently call them conspiracy theories. There is no reason whatsoever to change the name of this article. Keep as is. --Aude (talk) 15:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You have not explained why any of the guidelines I have cited above do not apply in this case. Ireneshusband 20:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, what kind of "reliable sources" are we talking about? Scholarly sources or non-scholarly sources? If they are non-scholarly sources then the following guideline applies:

* Replicability— The conclusions of the source can be reached using the information available and there is no indication of gaps in the thinking or process of derivation. Essentially, this criterion asks if there are any leaps of faith in the source: (from WP:RS)

Have these sources established a clear definition of what exactly they mean by "conspiracy theory" and have they demonstrated (rather than merely asserted) that the whole spectrum of alternative 9/11 theories are,without exception, "conspiracy theories" by this definition? If not, then they cannot be considered reliable sources for our present purpose.

"If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck!" is very clever, but beside the point. If you asked various people to describe a duck they would be unlikely to disagree substantially with each other. The same is not true of "conspiracy theory", as is quite obvious if you consider that even among the small group of impassioned debunkers taking part in this debate there is no agreement on such fundamental questions as whether all belief in conspiracies qualifies as belief in "conspiracy theories". Nor does the word "duck" imply a value judgement, which "conspiracy theory" clearly does. Wikipedia's express policy is to name articles in ways that avoid value judgements. Ireneshusband 23:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Unfortunate support - yes, they're conspiracy theories, but the other term is NPOV and non-offensive. I think not too highly of the theories presented, but that doesn't mean the title can't be changed to a less POV name. -Patstuart^talk|edits 15:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• What would be the suggested name for 9/11 Truth Movement? Something that doesn't carry the POV implication that there is some kind of truth or movement involved. Weregerbil 15:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Except that's the common and proper name for the group. Like Pro-choice. Patstuart^talk|edits 16:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
    • 9/11 Truth Movement is a term used for an informal collection of conspiracy theorists. 9/11 conspiracy theories is a term used for an informal collection of wacky physics, holographic mini-nuke space lazerz, etc. What makes one term a "common and proper name" and the other not? Is it mainly the Initial Capital Letters? Weregerbil 08:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It is also a red herring. We are not debating the appropriateness of "9/11 Truth Movement" here. Ireneshusband 20:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• • • I know, and I agree, like conspiracy theory is the name for a conspiracy theory when that's what most people call it. But for those who think NPOV issues override the usual real name of a subject...? Weregerbil 16:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You have not answered the points I have raised from the guidelines. Nor has it been shown that anybody has actually established that there is an "it" called "9/11 conspiracy theories". In other words no one has established that all dissident hypotheses about 9/11 fit the profile of a "conspiracy theory". Ireneshusband 20:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strongest Possible Change The current title is POV. You make a good point with the Truth Movement claim, but the Truth Movement is a proper noun, while Conspiracy Theories are a grouping. Thus, we must go to the most NPOV phraseology, so I propose we change the name and add a redirect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by .V. (talk • contribs).

Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as is Per myself, Titanium Dragon, Morton devonshire, and Tom Harrison. No endless amount of talking can change lack of reliable sources, failure of the google test, and that the proposal was rejected before by the wikipedia community. --Wildnox(talk) 16:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It fails the "google test" because it is not a proper name as such. "Qur'an desecration controversy of 2005" also fails the google test because it is the title of a Wikipedia article and nothing else, yet this is cited in wikipedia:Naming conflict as an example of a good name. Please show us the section in the wikipedia guidelines that recommends the "google test". Ireneshusband 20:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright the google test is cited in WP:NCON under How to make a choice among controversial names and under WP:NC(CN) under see also as a way of determine which name is more common. --Wildnox(talk) 21:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The Google test has always been and very likely always will remain an extremely inconsistent tool, which does not measure notability. It is not and should never be considered definitive. (wikipedia:Google test)

We should also note that all the examples of usage of the "Google test" in the guidelines, as far as I can see, involve proper names. Neither "9/11 conspiracy theory" nor "9/11 (alternative theories)" is a proper name. What matters is whether the title "9/11 (alternative theories)" gives a clear indication of the general scope of the article's contents, which it does.

That said, I have already made it clear that frequency of use is not, according to the guidelines, the only valid criterion for choosing a name and that other criteria, according to those guidelines, apply in this case, which means that all this stuff about the "google test" is completely beside the point. Why aren't you willing to address the various wikipedia guidelines I have cited in support of the name change? If you think those guidelines do not apply in this case then you must say why. Ireneshusband 00:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:NC(CN) applies to common names. As for why I think the usual first criteria applies, see below, I'll bold the specific sentence so you don't have to read through the whole thing for that point, since this probably becoming quite exhausting for everyone to read. (according to WP:NC this is a policy not a guideline, yes I know that is a moot point but oh well) --Wildnox(talk) 00:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I have raised numerous pertinent points from the guidelines but no one who still opposes this motion is willing to address them. Instead we have seen tactics such as citation of non-existent guidelines, personal insults and so on. And behind it all is the slippery phrase "conspiracy theory" which no one who uses it is willing to define clearly. Ireneshusband 20:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be more constructive to rework the content to justify the title. For example, if the article started as follows: "Any of a broad range of views that emphasise the possibility that al-Qaeda was not primarily responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States have come to be called "9/11 conspiracy theories". This label serves mainly to marginalize a set of beliefs that is highly critical of the way the officials prepared for and responded to the events of that day."--Thomas Basboll 00:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let met state my exact view of this. Obviously from what I've said above I do not think the name should be changed. I do believe there is a very slight element of POV in the title, which would push us into the other areas of policy, but I do not believe that it is anywhere serious enough to warrant a change and is currently small subjective arguement entirely. I believe that this still falls under the "Policy in a nutshell" on WP:NC where yhe article name is simple the most common term in the english language. I believe we can cite multiple reliable sources using the term in reference to theories involving 9/11 (Per Popular Mechanics CBC ABC time CNN 9/11 Truth) and virtually none for the other(I belive that International Herald Tribune used it but I do not have a link to the article at this moment and I would, and 9/11 truth has most likely used it before aswell). I think that we can also use the google test to help reinforce which is more common. I think it's obvious which term is more common. Now, if there is a term, which I am obviously unaware of that is just a common as "conspiracy theories" to describe these theories I would support a change to that term. --Wildnox(talk) 00:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

"I do believe there is a very slight element of POV in the title,"

The title presupposes that all the views it purports to represent are false. You can't get more POV than that.

Yes, all those magazines etc. use the term "conspiracy theory" but have any of them justified its use to represent the entire spectrum of 9/11 dissent? The term is not a mere neutral label. It implicitly categorises this entire spectrum of dissent as poorly reasoned, fanatical etc. Because these news outlets are non-scholarly sources the criterion of "replicability" applies. If these news sources have not justified their implicit assertion that all dissenting views of 9/11 are false then we should consider that assertion, according to wikipedia guidelines, to involve a "leap of faith" and therefore to be unacceptable as source material. Critiquing a subset of all these dissident theories, as Popular Mechanics and the others have done, is not the same as critiquing the whole lot of them. These news sources haven't bothered to demonstrate the falsity of all the dissenting theories so their dismissal of these as "conspiracy theories" is entirely without foundation and should be disregarded. Ireneshusband 01:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I honestly don't agree that "conspiracy theory" isntantly implies falsehood. I've never taken it that way. Anyone who assumes "conspiracy theory" implies falsehood, in my opinion, would most likely assume "alternative theory" to mean falsehood as well. Honestly, can we just finish this debate, I think that it is pretty obvious neither you nor I shall concede our positions anytime soon. --Wildnox(talk) 01:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I have challenged you to cite one instance of the term conspiracy theory being used in the mainstream media in a way that is not intended to indicate that such a theory is false. You have failed to do so. What you personally feel it to be is of little consequence because you are not a "reputable source".

And then you bring up the "google test" again a couple of comments ago. This has already been dealt with. It is not the be all and end all. It is not reliable. It has never been recommended as a way to deal with disputes over names that are not proper nouns. And in any case, there are other criteria that in this case would override the guideline about frequency of use, such as the need not to prejudge the content of the article and the need to avoid causing serious offense. All these things are clear from the guidelines I have quoted above. If you think those guidelines do not apply then you must say so explicitly and explain why. Why are you unwilling to do this?

The fact that you and I can't agree does not make you 50% right. I have deployed several arguments based on specific wikipedia policies that I have quoted in order to support my case. You and nearly all the other debunkers (with a single honourable exception) have ignored these because they do not suit your case. I, on the other hand, have attempted to address as many of your argmuments as I could. I cannot and will not accept a consensus that is based on a refusal to address earnest and clearly reasoned arguments and that is in clear violation of the wikipedia guidelines most pertinent to this case. Ireneshusband 01:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You don't understand the guiding principles of Wikipedia, and this is getting to the point of being disruptive. You're beating a dead horse; you are convinced you're right, but you don't understand the basic guiding principles of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not censored, it doesn't use weasel words, it doesn't beat around the bush, and it isn't politically correct. Anyone who claims otherwise has not read the relevant policies. Read them and understand them. Your argument consists of "I don't like this name, it portrays these theories negatively". The issue is that the name is NPOV and is in accordance with all the relvent policies. Naming it "alternate theories" is farcical and incorrect; they are labelled quite correctly as conspiracy theories by our reliable sources, and are called such by the populace at large. That the phrase "conspiracy theory" has negative connotations is your POV; it is not NPOV. Does the word cult have negative connotations? In some peoples' minds, yes. But cult is not inherently negative, that is the POV of many people, but not everyone, and using the word correctly is acceptable. Likewise with conspiracy theory and cryptozoology. Yes, some people correlate those negatively, like, say, with crazy people and cranks (probably because they're primarily passed about and generated by crazy people and cranks, but I digress). However, they are still proper nouns and should be used when appropriate regardless of those negative connotations, as the words themselves are not inherently judgemental (in contrast to, say, nigger or rag head, which were generated as derogatory slang). Wikipedia is not politically correct and is not censored, and does not weasel about or beat around the bush. These are conspiracy theories, are called conspiracy theories by our many, many reliable sources, and are called conspiracy theories by far the most often amongst English speakers. Ergo, the title of the article. Unless you can contravene these, there's absolutely no reason to change the title of the article. We don't have to "prove" anything; you have to show us how this article title is not in accordance with Wikipedia policy and have utterly failed to do so. Any other article title would not be the most commonly used name by our reliable sources and would not be the most commonly used name in English. On that basis alone I can't see changing the name. See Piss Christ. Or nigger. Titanium Dragon 10:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Perspectives, perspectives… if you would make a U turn there and tried to gallop in other directions you'd end up saying the same things about so called "official story", or is it a mainstream account as we call it here..? Back to the point, I have nothing against article about 911 conspiracy theories; it should certainly exist, but certainly not in existing form. What I find wrong while reading through this editorial, that is besides extremely poor wording which I've pointed earlier, is this mixture of verifiable facts (such as War Games, Government foreknowledge, Possible!? early warnings…) with energy weapons and aman. Of course, that doesn’t disturb as much as these comments about CT not being defamatory term… I'm not sure why would editors who worked here choose such amusing form of criticism, but please read it carefully. You may actually notice that we, the deciders, are painting this ridiculous picture with such gibberish as:

"The mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking (as well as creationism, Holocaust denial and the various crank theories of physics). All the "evidence" for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy."

That whole section is brilliantly disgusting disclaimer of everything written in the article, isn’t it? You see, I'm trying hard not to be provoked into intellectual blabbering, but this sort of fallacy is unbearable. As Dragon would say: "they are labelled quite correctly as conspiracy theories by our reliable sources,". Well, I'm pretty sure that prominent scholars and truthseekers don't use word conspiracy (at least not as often as mainstream media or Wikipedia do). Wish those folks would see the harm we've done to their credibility and sue us. As vaguely pointed earlier, I'd suggest we consider a merge of few (WP:RS, WP:V) sections from here to their rightful place in September 11, 2001 attacks article. With such course, there would be little reason to interfere with traditional naming convention. Lovelight 14:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

That exerpt you took is as bad as any quote-mining creationist and all the conservatives who use the editorial page to claim liberal bias in the NYT. No, what you quoted there was a -quote- from someone -else-. Claiming that section is disgusting is farcical. That section is specifically related to criticism of the conspiracy theories, just as a section in the main 9/11 article talks about the criticisms of the main theory. It is both reasonable and appropriate - criticism of this subject is as prominent as the subject itself! Titanium Dragon 21:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Why dont the Oppose and Agree camps?

Why don't each camp list below their own beliefs/reasons for change/no change. But list just each reason in one sentence, list more then 1 reason if you want, but do each as a seperate line. Having done this we can have a subsection for each point and debate a single point at a time. Instead of each side rambling on with paragraph after paragraph just arguing semantics and policy. Then we will see what each and everyones points are instead of having to read war & peace, then translate it into Greek, via russian, spanish and Swahili

• Oppose The name change in my opinion fails common sense "Snorkel | Talk" 09:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The name is accurate and is the most commonly used name in both English and our reliable sources; Wikipedia is not supposed to use weasel words or be censored, and calling them alternate theories is simply trying to weasel out of labelling them correctly. Titanium Dragon 10:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose They are conspiracy theories, and they are called that in virtually all reliable sources. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The name change would be a significant repurposing; "alternative theories" would include theories such as one which only differs from the mainstream one in that the steel was defective.
• Oppose Concur with Titanium Dragon. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Though I'm not sure I'm in a "camp". I agree that "9/11 CT" is pejorative but I think this aspect should be reflected in the article, not deflected by the title.--Thomas Basboll 15:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Even though I think there is a slight element of POV to the title, I don't think that it is anywhere near serious enough to warrant a change away from the current name, which is overwhelmingly more common. --Wildnox(talk) 17:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing myself from the debate in the interest of supplying a big pile of evidence(for both) below. Feel free to add to it. --Wildnox(talk) 04:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Agree This is the main article for this undisputed category title and should be consistent with other (category, main article) pairs, the current title could serve as a redirect for searching purposes along with the many others. Umeboshi 19:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Agree
  • "Conspiracy theory" is consistently and exclusively used in the mainstream media in a derogatory sense, as demonstrated by the opposers' complete inability to find a counter-example.
  • Wikipedia guidelines state that article titles should not prejudge the content.
  • Wikipedia guidelines state that article titles should avoid being derogatory.
  • Wikipedia guidelines favouring frequency of citation by "reputable sources" do not take precedence over the above two criteria, as can be seen in the Mormonism/Latter Day Saints guidelines.
  • The Wikipedia guidelines favouring frequency of citation are clearly concerned with disputes over proper nouns and are therefore of little relevance here.
  • The non-academic "reputable sources" cited have not demonstrated, as they are required to do under the Wikipedia criterion of "replicability", that the category "conspiracy theory" is one that legitimately encompasses all phenomena so described.
  • When we consider the contemptuous and vitriolic things some of the opposers of this motion themselves have written in this talk section, in the main article and in other places on wikipedia, their claim that "conspiracy theory" is not a derogatory term is no more than a sick joke.
  • Because the opposers clearly do not even remotely agree on a definition of "conspiracy theory" among themselves, the "If it looks like a duck" argument is mere tautology; how can you say that this is what everybody calls "it" when you can't even pin down what "it" is? Ireneshusband 20:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
    • • What Snorkel suggested was for all the main arguments put forward in this debate to be listed briefly so each could be dealt with in its own section. I think that would be better than breaking up the list by adding comments under each item. Ireneshusband 05:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
        • I agree, therefore I also moved your response formerly in this area to a new section.67.176.251.136 19:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Agree - the former name is prejudicial and not all of the theories involve a conspiracy.- BMcCJ 03:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I beg to differ. Even the arguments about government incompetence still rely on a conspiracy of terrorists. As such I cannot find an argument within this article that does not include a conspiracy. 67.176.251.136 02:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I still think it is prejudicial and that is really my point. Many statements/quotes on this page concur. Isn't the 'heat' around this based more on your viewpoint? If you think the conventional/media/governmental storyline is not quite right, this page presents *alternatives* to the popular storyline. Even though I agree that many of these storylines assume a conspiracy. The word alternative is simply broader and less prejudiced to a conspiracy. Using conspiracy is incorrect because no one knows if there was a conspiracy or what that conspiracy was. All we really know is what storylines we were told. No matter which side of the discussion you are on, alternative allows broader thought and ideas. - BMcCJ 01:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. The current name is spot-on descriptive and is commonly used for the concept by virtually all reliable sources. Wikipedia is not censored to protect conspiracy theorists. Weregerbil 08:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose — `alternative theories' reeks of crackpottery even more anyway — and it is very telling that a certain demographic here can't see this. Rosenkreuz 09:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Existing title is both an accurate description of the content and the most normal way of describing it in English. Andrewa 13:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. But add a short paragraph with cites from "conspiracy theorists" explaining why they prefer the term "alternative theories" to "conspiracy theories". There have been several reputable cites just in this argument. 69.114.117.103 20:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)
• Oppose. All the theories discussed in this article describe conspiracies, whether they be conspiracies of Islamic terrorists, conspiracies of Bush administration employees, or conspiracies of the Illuminati, every single theory involves a conspiracy. As this is an article of theories about conspiracies, and the title "Conspiracy Theories" is completely accurate.67.176.251.136 03:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Agree When a term becomes loaded with negative implications, it should be changed even if it correctly describes the subject. Here the subject are of course "theories about a supposed conspiracy", but the term "conspiracy theory" is too deteriorated. Issues about the "most commmon" term can be easily solved through a redirect. I support "alternative theories", but I think even a formulation such as "9/11 conspiracy accusations" would better clarify that the definition is simply factual and no negative implication is necessarily intended.Massimamanno 01:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Response to points raised by Ireneshusband moved from the single line comments

• I know users don't usually listen to unregistered edits, but for the sake of actually addressing some of the concerns raised by Ireneshusband, instead of talking in circles, I wanted to offer some counterpoints.
• First, the argument about not finding a mainstream example of a Conspiracy Theory being used in a non-derogatory sense does not carry much weight. Words or phrases like terrorist, fascist, and anti-semite are used routinely across Wikipedia. Clearly all of these carry negative connotations in mainstream media. Yet changing them to Freedom Fighter, National Socialist, and Zionist Objectionist has not been deemed necessary in order to maintain NPOV in their respective articles, similarly it should not be necessary to change the name of this article, especially in light of the widespread use of the term CT in mainstream media. I believe this also addresses point 3 raised above.
• Second, look at the term "Conspiracy Theory". It is made up of two words, "Conspiracy" and "Theory". I think all will agree that what is presented in this article are theories, none can be proven as absolute fact. Indeed the name change does not seek to relable them as fact. All of the theories mentioned here also include a conspiracy. Unless one of the theories deals in natural disaster, or complete accident, insofar as I can read all of the theories presented in this article are about conspiracies. Thus, everything presented here is, literally, a Conspiracy Theory. I believe this addresses not only the point about the "opposition" not being able to define conspiracy theories, as well as most of the other points. The policy of "replicability" is adhered to because all of the topics encompassed in this article are theories (not facts) that describe conspiracies (as opposed to accidental/natural phenomena). Similarly, the title does not prejudge the content as it, in the most literal sense, describes exactly what the article is: a collection of theories about conspiracies. Were the title "Conspiracy Theories the Government Doesn't Want You to Hear" or the above debated "Conspiracy Hoaxes" that would clearly prejudge. However, a title that merely describes the content of the article inherently does not prejudge.67.176.251.136 02:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Response to Rosenkreuz moved from the single line comments

• • That was a very stupid and offensive remark. You clearly have no interest in addressing the issues I have made concerning the Wikipedia guidelines and therefore resort to personal insults such as this. So conspiracy theorists are "crackpots". Is anyone still going to argue that the terms "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist" are not both derogatory and personally offensive? Ireneshusband 22:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• I am sorry you chose to read my statement at the most elementary and superficial level possible. Allow me to explain further, then. People who believe the WTC towers were destroyed by `mini-nukes' or space-based laser beams in the absence of any evidence, but on the premise that `all alternatives must be evaluated', are most definitely crackpots as far as I am concerned. But calling these ideas `alternative theories' only emphasises that — that is what I was saying (the same as calling the article on flat earth theories `Geography (alternative theories)' is much more cranky than just calling it flat-earthism). However, `conspiracy theory' is the correct word, because it describes exactly what these things are. If many people snigger when hearing the term, it is only because of what is associated with it — and for that, the conspiracy theorists have no-one to thank but themselves. But they should at least be proud of, and confident in, their beliefs, no matter what attributes people associate with the umbrella term for their theories, surely? There is no need to move an article to a misleading, euphemistic and downright outlandish name simply because credible sources have not treated the ideas contained therein with wide-eyed adulation. There, now does that address the issues to your satisfaction, Ireneshusband? Rosenkreuz 11:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The evidence I mentioned

Here is a list of differnt sources which could be used in the debate by either side. I'll add more later. Some were already mentioned above some are new. I just thought it would be nice if people actually had some reliable sources to use, since almost nobody had used any yet.

Popular Mechanics CBC ABC time CNN New York Times 9/11 Truth - All describe using "conspiracy"

U.S. Department of State Washington Post - Both using both terms in one article.

International Herald Tribune skeptic.com - Both describe using "alternative"

IL- has a picture with CNN using the term "alternative theories" in a poll

Denver post USA Today- Call the term derogatory

Feel free to add more--Wildnox(talk) 04:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Wildnox, for this very helpful research. I have the following to add:

• Conspiracy and the State of the Union by Jamey Hecht, especially "'Conspiracy theory' is a trigger phrase, saturated with intellectual contempt and deeply anti-intellectual resentment."
• David Ray Griffin says that "conspiracy theory" is a "thought stopper" (I'm sorry I can't find a more direct source for this—I read about this somewhere else at some point, but I can't find that source any more.) Griffin is a highly respected theologian/philosopher and therefore is very well qualified to comment on this matter. Ireneshusband 22:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

A Reminder to be civil

Please I would like to remind everyone to be civil, calm down and avoid personal jibes at other editors. In particular the current round of discussion on the name proposed name change.

Like the 9/11 article, this corresponding CT article obviously invokes some anguish.

Can I ask all editors to make short replies about an individual point, rather than make a long reply that gets into different arguments, that will make thread following simpler for us all, and allow for single points to be discussed and reasoned on. Statements such as "Conspiracy theories are the intellectual toxic waste poisoning contemporary democratic civil society" do not help and only act to inflame a highly contentious issue. (In not making an example of any one editor in particular and apologise if using that statement suggests I am having a go). The article as a whole is very good, and of course can always be improved. Good Editing "Snorkel | Talk" 11:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theory 2.0

I have been doing a lot of digging around into previous discussions related to the topic of changing the name of this article and similar articles. Similar discussions have been made before this. A good place to refer y'all to first is Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory. Take a look at the talk pages, including the archives. Especially look at Wikipedia_talk:Conspiracy_theory/archive2. The 1.0 proposal failed, and the newer 2.0 proposal is here User:Zen-master/Conspiracy theory titles. As far as this article goes, it seems that it has been moved once already, for slightly over 1 hour.[6] The edit summary here refers to the archive2 link I listed above. I haven't had the time to read through all of this yet, but many of the same arguments raised here are raised there also. Work on the 2.0 proposal seems to have died about a year ago. Perhaps it is time to resurrect it again. The value of the proposal is that it helps set guidelines for a larger range of articles and establishes a precedent in case a similar discussion happens again. Please note that there was no consensus on the 1.0 proposal and much of the debate is somewhat summarized there. I say somewhat because I haven't taken the time to peruse the archives more thoroughly. Umeboshi 01:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Version 2.0 died because the user who started it was banned. He had been warned by ArbCom not to make any more proposals regarding the titles of articles and was banned after he created the second. --Wildnox(talk) 03:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Where can we find the record of the proceedings by which he was banned? I'm having trouble understanding how policies about naming can come about if people are not allowed to make proposals about them. Ireneshusband 05:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't as much that he made a proposal, but the events leading up the the proposal being made(and that he had already made the proposal multiple times). Here is the RFA case and here is the block log of the user. --Wildnox(talk) 06:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering why there had been no work on this for a while. I still think people here should review the previous discussions, as they certainly seem to relate to the current discussion here. You seem to be the one of the few who have tried to dig up a historic record from "wikipedia history" to help things along. This whole section started from the link you made above. Thank you. I appreciate that, as I feel that a good review of "this has been discussed before" is valuable help to current discussions. Umeboshi 18:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually it was Tom Harrison that linked the original discussion above, all I've done is look up the other events surrounding the failure of "2.0". I also would like to add that I brought up the ban and failure, not to discourage discussion, but to remind people that if this goes a way that any of us do not agree with, we should stay calm and avoid making hasty decisions. --Wildnox(talk) 18:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so he did. I must not have noticed it, because he didn't say anything about it. You did, which is why I noticed. :) Umeboshi 21:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The arguments in bite-sized chunks

Following on from Snorkel's suggestion (above) to break the argument up into little bits, I think the place to start would be... Ireneshusband 05:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Definition of "conspiracy theory"

Without a decent working definition of "conspiracy theory" we will get nowhere. It is up to the opposers to agree on one because they are the ones who maintain it is an "accurate" name for whatever it is this article is supposed to be about.

Here are a few questions for starters: Add you replies to each one indivually and under each Q

• Q. Would people understand the difference between CT and alternative theory. "Snorkel | Talk" 11:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • CT, is the common usgae term for a view that is alternate to the "official" account "Snorkel | Talk" 11:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
    • This is not the point in question. What matters is whether the title "9/11 (alternative theories)" is likely to be understood when people see it at the top of an article. Ireneshusband 17:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes. Alternative theory means something different from a conspiracy theory, and this article only describes conspiracy theories. Alternative theory generally uses a different meaning of the word theory than conspiracy theory does; for instance, alternative theories about the extinction of the dinosaurs are hypotheses which are falsifiable (or provable), whereas conspiracy theories are theories in the sense of "conjecture". Titanium Dragon 10:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • A. Yes. It's a simple concept. Alternative theories disregard the official theory. What is so difficult to understand about that? Coconuteire 17:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Q. What characterises a "conspiracy theory"?

• • A. The idea that a secret conspiracy with ulterior motives caused an event to occur then covered up their involvement in the event successfully to the public at large. Because of the last clause, a conspiracy theory is never the generally agreed-upon version of events. Titanium Dragon 10:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • A. A theory which holds a plot between two or more people as the cause behind an event. Coconuteire 17:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Q. Is believing in a conspiracy the same thing as believing in a "conspiracy theory". If not, then what is the difference?
  • A. No. You can believe in a conspiracy (for example, Iran-Contra) because it has been proven. A conspiracy theory has yet to be proven (official story of 9/11, opposing views). Coconuteire 17:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Q. What kind of person is a "conspiracy theorist"?
  • A. Hard to say, but looking at this article in particular, I would say, anyone who has a theoryt that differs with the official theory "Snorkel | Talk" 11:18,

21 December 2006 (UTC)

• • • Then your answer is at odds with the the conspiracy theory article which says that people believe in "conspiracy theories" due to various psychological drives and dysfunctions, and which cites various academic sources to support this view. What this (9/11 conspiracy theories) article says is not really pertinent here. Rather the question is about the general usage of the term. Ireneshusband 17:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • A. A conspiracy theorist is someone who actively fabricates and/or propagates one or more conspiracy theories. Titanium Dragon 10:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • A. Someone who has a theory about an alleged conspiracy, for example supporters of the official story and supporters of alternative theories. Coconuteire 17:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Q. Does believing in a "conspiracy theory" make one a "conspiracy theorist"?
  • No. If a person believes that Bush ordered 9/11 but that Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK,Roosevelt had no prior knowledge of Pearl Harbor and most or all of the other mainstream explanations that person is not a conspiracy theorist in my view.. 69.114.117.103 05:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)
  • A. No. To be a conspiracy theorist, you must either fabricate or propagate one or more conspiracy theories. Thus, someone who believes that Bush caused 9/11 is not a conspiracy theorist, whereas somemone who claims on television that Bush caused 9/11 or came up with the idea that Bush caused 9/11 would be a conspiracy theorist. Titanium Dragon 10:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • A. No, you would have to actively propagate the theory. Someone who publically claims that al-Qaeda was behind 9/11 is a conspiracy theorist, as is someone who publically claims that elements within the US government were behind it. Coconuteire 17:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Q. Can a "conspiracy theory" be true?
  • A. Well in my view, I suppose only time will tell, we all knew the earth was flat, and some guy had a theory it wasnt. "Snorkel | Talk" 11:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Of course 69.114.117.103 05:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)
  • A. A conspiracy theory cannot be the generally accepted narrative of an event, as one of the conditions of being a conspiracy theory is that the conspirators covered it up successfully to the public at large. A conspiracy theory shown to be true (such as, say, the Reagan administration selling weapons to Iran illegally or supporting the contras illegally) loses its status as a conspiracy theory, as it no longer has been successfully covered up by the conspirators to the public at large. Thus, while it may be true, it cannot be the generally accepted view of the event. Note that not all minority views are by definition conspiracy theories; for instance, the idea that the Big Bang is an atheist legend is not a conspiracy theory (even though it is wrong). That atheists and Jews made it up to destroy God is a conspiracy theory. Titanium Dragon 10:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • A. Many "conspiracy theories" have been proven true. Operation Northwoods, Gulf of Tonkin, Iran-Contra, to name some. Coconuteire 17:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Q. Can a "conspiracy theory" be reasonable?
  • A. Yes, of course, an example would be "Bush knew the attacks were going to happen". In my opinion an unreasonable theory would be "The Bush administration financed the terrorists" "Snorkel | Talk" 11:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
    • So are you saying that, in some cases, a conspiracy theory does not arise out of a longing for simplistic explanations, paranoia etc.? If so you are at odds with the editorial consensus at conspiracy theory. Which one of those views correctly captures how "conspiracy theory" is understood in popular discourse? Ireneshusband 17:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
      • People are different so of course there are many "conspiracy theorists" who feel the way they do for reasons other then the editorial consensus reasons but current "mainstream" opinion says most are. As said above time will tell if that consensus is correct. As for popular discourse conspiracy theorists belong to the "tinfoil hat brigade". This term should find it's way into the article. In every and I mean 100% of every message board or personal conversation a variation of "tinfoil hat brigade" has come up. Since message boards are a no no here I do not know how to get that term into the article 69.114.117.103 05:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)
  • A. Questionable. A conspiracy theory by definition is never the generally accepted view of an event, as if the conspirators failed to successfully cover it up to the public at large it is no longer a conspiracy theory. Therefore, a conspiracy theory must by definition lack enough plausibility to be accepted by the general public. For instance, it could be reasonable (Bush attacked Iraq to secure oil for the United States throughout the 21st century) but lack the evidence to back it up. If evidence emerged to back it up (say, we find a document which says "We need to go to war with Iraq to secure their oilfields", or Bush administration members involved in the decision stated it was the reason), then it would lose its status as a conspiracy theory. Titanium Dragon 10:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • A. Many conspiracy theories are reasonable, for example "A small group of people within the US government conspired to carry out 9/11". It can be explained and the pieces seem to fit. Some are not so reasonable, such as "Bush and Cheney carried out 9/11", which is absolutely absurd. Coconuteire 17:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Q. Are "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist" derogatory terms?
  • A. It depends on the context in which it is used, remember only a fraction on how we communicate is in the words, the rest is tonal, visual etc "Snorkel | Talk" 11:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
    • So please cite an example from the mainstream media in which the term has been used in a way that was not derogatory or dismissive. Ireneshusband 17:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • A. In the same way "gay" or "homosexual" can be derogatory terms, so can "conspiracy theory", "conspiracy theorist", or "cryptozoologist". They do not have to be derogatory terms, but they can be used as derogatory terms because of some people's negative connotations with conspiracy theory. Being Jewish isn't derogatory, but being called a Jew can be an insult, as can being called an atheist. However, innately, the term is not derogatory in nature. Titanium Dragon 10:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • A. I believe so. "Conspiracy theorist" is generally used to dismiss claims of conspiracy and particularly the evidence behind the theory. Coconuteire 17:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Q. Does your answer to the above question accord with your own language and conduct as recorded in your past Wikipedia edits?
  • A. Yes. Titanium Dragon 10:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • A. Yes. Coconuteire 17:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Q. Does it accord with the usage of the terms in the mainstream media and in academia?
  • A. Yes; it should be noted that the mainstream media is not entirely unified in their definition/view of the subject, so by necessity any yes or no must be qualified. Titanium Dragon 10:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • A. Yes, the majority of mainstream media will dismiss almost all MIHOP (Made It Happen On Purpose) theories as "insane conspiracy theory" (or variations thereof). There are some perfectly unbiased mainstream articles about the 9/11 Truth Movement but the vast majority are not. Coconuteire 17:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Q. Are the things you normally do not consider to be "conspiracy theories" successfully excluded by whatever definition you reach?

Ireneshusband 05:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• • A. Yes. Titanium Dragon 10:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

As Wikipedia is not in the business of conducting original research into the nature of conspiracy theories, I suggest this discussion be continued on some other forum. Weregerbil 11:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I quite agree, and find the very notion that one would have to work through this bizarre quasi-Socratic questionnaire, simply in order to decide upon what is a clearcut issue anyway, to be both opprobrious and surreal. Rosenkreuz 11:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The central arguments of this proposal are that "conspiracy theory" is a term that:

• prejudges what it refers to
• is offensive (due to its close association with the term "conspiracy theorist")
• is, in any case, too limited a term to encompass all the material that I think we all agree (at least for practical reasons, if not always for reasons of principle) should, instead of being dealt with in the main 9/11 article, be treated in a separate article.
  • I do not understand this last point. Can you please indicate, specifically, which aspect of the article does not relate to a theory involving a conspiracy? Even the oft-cited "Bush ignored/was too silly to see the warnings" theory involves a conspiracy of terrorists carrying out the actual attacks. Unless there is a section on how the events of 9/11 were carried out through accident or natural causes, which I don't see, then each and every single theory listed in this article involves a conspiracy of one sort or another (whether it be the Neo-Cons, Islamists, or the Illuminati). Thus the term "conspiracy theory" very accurately and completely encompasses all of the material in this article.67.176.251.136 20:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It is impossible to do this without defining our terms. This is such an elementary principle of debate that it is utterly astonishing that you should be unaware of it.

"Original research": The argument "If it walks like a duck...", i.e. that the meaning of "conspiracy theory" is self-evident, or the argument "In my opinion a conspiracy theory is..." are original research. What I am asking you to do is to define your terms and to cite reputable sources to justify that definition.

In any case, this is what WP:OR has to say:

This policy in a nutshell:

Articles may not contain any unpublished arguments, ideas, data, or theories; or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position.

In other words, the policy applies to the content of articles and it is not clear how relevant it is to debates about naming. Ireneshusband 17:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You would surely agree that the name of an article has a substantive effect on the light in which the content is perceived — hence the reason for this discussion in the first place. Therefore, if the title represents an original synthesis of information, or an original synthesis of information is necessary to change the title, it is original research having a bearing on the nature of the information contained in the article. Ergo, the policy is most certainly relevant. While I suppose the OR policy doesn't exactly stop you and your chums having a discussion about it on the talk page, it isn't really what talk pages are for, and since I am on a capped DSL bandwidth, I would prefer it if I didn't need to pay money to load a bunch of extraneous crap which doesn't belong here. But my economic gripes aside, you certainly cannot expect everyone to join in your discussion, since it is superfluous.

The bottom line is this. If the mainstream press uses the term `conspiracy theory' as an umbrella for all these ideas, and if the president of the U.S. does likewise, then there is no need for us to be politically correct and use the euphemism put forth by the `theorists' themselves: for that would be the illegimate `novel synthesis'. A consensus has already been established that this is the case, and to continue whining about it is both disruptive and unflattering, I think. Rosenkreuz 18:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

There is (still) a consensus to keep the page name as it is. While it is in principle legitimate to try to change policy to not allow "conspiracy theory" in page titles, or to edit Wikipedia:Words to avoid to include 'conspiracy theory', or to change the definition of 'conspiracy theory' or otherwise edit conspiracy theory, or to do any of a dozen other things, forum shopping is frowned on and is rarely sucessful. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

So are you saying that the matter is officially closed? Snorkel made an excellent proposal on how to conduct the debate more constructively, yet now that we have just started to embark on that process you arbitrarily shut off the discussion. I have made many points that have yet to be rebutted concerning both wikipedia's guidelines and how the term "conspiracy theory" is used and understood in actual practice. Do you think it inappropriate that they should be addressed? Ireneshusband 18:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I cannot speak for Mr. Harrison, but I find it inappropriate, yes. You may like to think your superlatively excellent `points' have yet to be `rebutted', but the bottom line is that this discussion has wound down, and prolonging it indefinitely with tedious bickering is counter-productive. My tuppence' worth. Rosenkreuz 18:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Sarcastic jibes at other wikipedia editors are inappropriate. Ireneshusband 18:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It is getting to the point of being disruptive. You don't seem to want consensus, as the consensus disagrees with you. You seem to want the change, and it seems fairly obvious at this point that, in fact, it is not going to happen. You should let it drop for a while. It has been brought up historically, and failed, and it failed now, for the same reason. Titanium Dragon 19:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Why are we re-visiting this issue again? Hasn't this been decided half-a-dozen-times? Isn't this continue rehashing of this very issue the reason that Zen-master was perma-banned? Morton devonshire 19:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

If all I have done is to rehash an old argument then why couldn't anybody point to the places in the archives where the particular points I have used to support the case for renaming have already been answered?

The case of Zen-master is not relevant to my case because I have never taken part in such a debate before and I have only started this debate once. As I have already pointed out during this debate, the guidelines acknowledge that editors come and go and that therefore it is unreasonable to say that a consensus should be binding on all future editors.

In any case none of this arguing over procedure changes anything about the proper way to hold a debate, which is to pay careful attention to the points made by one's opponent and to provide, to the best of one's ability, a well reasoned counter-argument. If this did not happen in previous incarnations of the debate (I haven't yet seen the archives of these myself so I cannot say) then the conclusions reached at those times could only have reflected ill-informed prejudice and therefore it would only be proper to hold the debate again in the future in the hope that it would be conducted in a more satisfactory way. And because it did not happen this time it will surely come up again in the future.

The way you have cited the case of Zen-master could be mistaken for a veiled threat. I would appreciate it if you would clarify what you meant by it. Ireneshusband 21:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It just gets better and better with you, doesn't it? You not only insist on having a `debate' with people who aren't interested, but also on singlehandedly judging any prior `debates' in order to ascertain whether they meet your level of logical integrity.

Your self-centredness (of which you are barely conscious, clearly) also astounds: you insist that because you weren't present before when this issue was evidently discussed with Zenmaster, everyone one must indulge you in your debate so that you can establish to your satisfaction that the article title meets your standards of neutrality, originality, etc., which standards are only remotely related to Wikipedia's. The subtext of your argument furthermore suggests that you assume that because your deific majesty was not present at the prior discussion, the sane people couldn't possibly have made lucid, logical arguments as to why changing the name of an article is a bad idea.

I wouldn't say that anyone has been making veiled threats around here — yet — only pointing out how pernicious and recalcitrant attempts to push a personal point of view have a tendency to get editors locked out from this website; in general, on the InterNet, such behaviour is known as trolling. I would be very careful not to act like a troll, wouldn't you? Saying that isn't a threat, by any means, since from what I gather there is no end of bureaucracy and red tape to fight through before a troll gets his come-uppance — such decisions are made neither by any individual editor nor by some unaccountable cabal. But it certainly is a load of unpleasantness which can easily be avoided, not so? Rosenkreuz 21:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I found the following on my talk page:

Hello, Ireneshusband. I realise that some of my remarks on the talk page of that 9/11 article may be a little biting. It is not my intention to cause personal upset, but I do believe strongly in shooting a straight arrow and not diluting my sincerity simply in order to get along. That being said, I apologise if you are insulted by my remarks — I shall be making the most Herculean of efforts to be more civil in future engagements. Rosenkreuz 22:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

So why didn't Rosenkreuz see fit to make his apology known on these talk pages? In fact this "apology" was only offered after another user reprimanded him (user_talk:Rosenkreuz#Civility).

I have attempted, to the best of my ability, to assume good faith on the part of all contributors to this discussion, and in many case this has been reciprocated. However the conduct of several other editors, who have made repeated recourse to personal attacks and even veiled threats that I might be banned from wikipedia, has been nothing short of disgraceful.

Rosenkreuz made a barbed reference to my "chums", but the behaviour of the opponents of this motion comes across as rather chummy does it not?

Let me repeat, few of the core arguments I raised were challenged, and even those challenges that were raised were no more than either bare and unsupported assertions of personal opinion or empty tautologies. Nor have those points been challenged, by the looks of things, in previous incarnations of the debate. A proper, honest and thorough debate on changing the name of this article has never taken place. Ireneshusband 18:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Ireneshusband would do well to get his facts straight before throwing around accusations. The note I left him, if he looks at the date and time, came nearly 24 hours before someone else left me a note about civility. Not that that matters, one way or another: my apology stands. But I don't think his behaviour is gentlemanly or becoming, if this is how he acts upon being apologised to. Most ungracious, I'd say. But that's up to Ireneshusband, ultimately, to reflect upon.

If the name change hasn't yet been adequately discussed, Ireneshusband, then what is all that text above this little exchange? We had a `vote+argument' session, but ultimately, because Wikipedia is not a debating forum, that is what counts towards the decision making process, as I understand it. I, for one, have neither the time nor the inclination to get bogged down in specious `debates' about this issue. You seem to be the only person, at this point in time, who insists that such would be necessary.

That's it, I have nothing more to say on this particular topic. Rosenkreuz 18:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

No. What actually has occured is this: Your arguments have all been refuted. Unfortunately, you apparently have not read this talk page. You have claimed that it isn't a neutral term; we've rejected that. You've claimed it is prejudicial, which is really another way of saying the previous; we've rejected that too. You've claimed it is offensive; rejected. You've claimed it contradicts naming policy; we've pointed out that you are absolutely, positively wrong and your proposed name would be the violation. Et cetera. If you are unwilling to read the page, why are you discussing this? Please stop. Titanium Dragon 19:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Every single word that Titanium Dragon has written above is brazenly false. When Tom Harrison announced that the discussion was over, none of my core arguments had been addressed. It appears that since then a few comments have been added while I was distracted by the various personal insults and threats, but they do not by any remote stretch of the imagination indicate a sudden change of heart or a willingness to engage with my arguments fully or honestly and I see little point in answering them.

I have, to the best of my ability, tried to assume good faith on the part of all other editors, but the torrent of personal attacks, innuendo and unwarranted threats has made a mockery of such efforts. I am personally worn out by this, as you knew I would be, so I shall have to take a rest. Clearly I am not the first person to meet this kind of gang warfare in this place and I hate the thought that someone else should have to go through this. Therefore I shall, in due course, ask for mediation on this matter. Ireneshusband 00:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

What is "brazenly false" is that your arguments have not been addressed. At three separate points on this talk page I have addressed your core argument and you have yet to respond. However, for emphasizing purpose I will address it again: Can you point to a theory in this article that does not specifically relate to some sort of conspiracy? Whether it be a conspiracy of government employees, Islamic terrorists, or Illuminati armed with energy weapons each and every single theory in this article involves a conspiracy. The theory that the Bush administration was grossly incompetent involves a conspiracy of Islamic terrorists. The theory that the administration knew about it and let it happen, still involves the conspiracy of terrorists. The theory that the Bush administration made 9/11 happen involves a conspiracy within the administration. Examples of events that would not involve a conspiracy would be either the 9/11 plane crashes were a complete accident, or somehow (weather, who knows) they were caused naturally. As none of the theories argue that either an accident or natural causes resulted in the 9/11 attacks, that means all of the theories in this article involve conspiracies. Thus, each and every single theory in this article is a theory about a conspiracy, making the term "conspiracy theory" both appropriate and all-encompassing. 67.176.251.136 09:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I can tell you feel exasperated, and that is not my intention. Let me try to address the reasoning with Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is not about my opinions or yours, but what reputable and verifiable sources of note have said about any given subject. See WP:RS, WP:Verify, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:EL as a starter. We choose the term "conspiracy theory", because that's the way these theories are described almost universally in reputable sources. They may be called "alternative theories" in advocacy journals and websites, but those sources don't count under our WP:NPOV and WP:RS rules and guidelines, because, well, they are advocacy sites. Keep in mind that there advocacy sites on the other side which use much more pejorative terms to describe the Truth Movement viewpoint, and nobody is suggesting that we start using those pejorative terms to describe the Truth Movement theories here, as those sources violate WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:NOR as well. Policy bottom line: If these theories were almost universally called "alternative theories" in reputable sources, that's what we would call them here, but they're not. Our job is to mimic and mirror reputable sources, not to try to advocate our own beliefs in an article. The foundation of Wikipedia is built upon WP:NPOV, WP:Verify, and WP:NOR. For that reason, we have to call it what reputable sources call it: "conspiracy theories." Thank you for listening. Morton Devonshire^Yo 01:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The previous comment you made was to threaten me with perma-banning, even though I had done absolutely nothing wrong. Now you patronise me with this pretence of civility. It is very telling that you are not even aware how absurd this looks. Your tactics are identical to those of Rosenkreuz. You even sound just like him. Why is that, I wonder?

I have already demonstrated why the argument you have just outlined is rubbish. I'm not going to do it again. I laid out my case in 8 or 9 bullet points. I couldn't have done it more clearly. If my arguments were wrong you should have refuted them. Don't bother now. You've had your fun. The party's over. Ireneshusband 23:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I tried to address your issues. If you don't want to accept that, that's your problem, not mine. I'm done talking to you. If you want to go down the perma-ban route, then 'fill your boots' as the Canadians say. Morton Devonshire^Yo 01:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't help but wonder why you insist on replying to those editors that don't refute your points instead of those who do. Real objections to your arguments have been raised, and in the absence of a response from you, I fear we may be forced to conclude that your arguments have infact been refuted.67.176.251.136 23:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Nearly all the responses you are referring to were added after Tom Harrison officially closed the debate and while I was distracted by the various insults and threats that came after it. Either the debate is over or it isn't. You can't have it both ways. Whether Tom Harrison actually had the right to close the debate I am not sure because I don't understand Wikipedia policy well enough, but, rightly or wrongly, I assumed that to be the case and none of you objected. In any case, one person cannot reasonably be expected to fight on several fronts simultaneously. As I have already said, you have had your fun for now. I shall request mediation when I am ready. Ireneshusband 02:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

However, by your own admission, counter-points were brought up before Tom Harrison's comments. You continue to ignore those counterpoints. For someone who claims to be dedicated to having a debate you seem to be very committed to not debating. If your actual goal all along has been to have a reasonable debate on the merits of a name change, it does not make any sense to address non-substantive remarks made by other editors, especially when there are substantive points to be addressed.67.176.251.136 02:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. I answered every single one of the points made up to the time Tom Harrison announced the matter closed, with the exception of one comment left about 2 hours before the announcement, which I would have answered if I hadn't read the announcement first. I have absolutely no doubt that if I do answer any of these challenges that you will immediately return to your old strategy of dodging and ducking the issues while trying to derail the proceedings with personal attacks and threats. It is obvious to me that no progress can be made without the assistance of a mediator and so I shall, in due course, request this. I have already made this clear, so your accusation that I am conceding the argument is entirely without foundation.

This round of the debate is over. I thought that was understood by everybody once Tom Harrison had announced that it was. So can someone just please archive it and be done with it. Thank you. Ireneshusband 04:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

This debate is over not because To Harrison said so, its over because it has run its course and the overall consensus is leave it as it. I saw a good suggestion somewhere in the War & Peace dialogue above about adding a paragraph tot he article explaining AT v CT, why do you not draft a paragraph and put it here for comment "Snorkel | Talk" 09:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External Links

Am I the only user who thinks the external links section needs to be cleaned? I'm not sure what should go and what should stay, but I know there is no reason to have that many links in this article. --Wildnox(talk) 22:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Periodic pruning is necessary, as people add promotional links, or just links to their less-notable pet theories. I think the only links presented should be those to sites that have been mentioned in reliable sources. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Alteration of one of the section headers.

I changed "Flight 93 Never Crashed" to "Claims that Flight 93 never crashed" for two reasons.

1. All the other section headers refer to the theories they describe as "claims."
2. The theory described in this section is just that: a claim, not a fact, and stating it like a fact ("Flight 93 Never Crashed") violates WP:NOR.

Have a great day! :) Srose (talk) 04:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Bush Sr. takes a shot at conspiracy theorists during Fords eulogy

According to the N.Y. Times The first President Bush recalled Mr. Ford’s service on the Warren Commission, which investigated the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. “And the conspiracy theorists can say what they will, but the Warren Commission report will always have the final, definitive say on this tragic matter,” Mr. Bush said. “Why? Because Jerry Ford put his name on it, and Jerry Ford’s word was always good.”[7] While not directly related to 9/11 conspiracies the remark touched off extended musings by Chris Matthews on MSNBC. Basically he was perplexed on where this remark came from. He and his guests theorized he was defending "the establishment" or defending the need for an elite. But you could tell that Matthews was only partially convinced of his own theories on why the remarks were in the eulogy. He said you should not believe conspiracy theories until they are proven which I have no problem with. The problem I have is that the Bush Bin Ladin family conspiracy theories did not jump to his mind immediately. This defiantly was one of those moments you want jump into the TV and shake his neck. He is not a stupid or naive man. Indeed a little latter there was an extended discussion on why Matthews and Evan Thomas of Newsweek thought there was a “wink” “wink” deal between Ford and Nixon on the pardon. I guess this is another demonstration how out of touch the Washington Media is with the audience they are reporting to. I know this is a rant that has no article worthy material but this "audience" seems the most knowlegible one to deliver it to. 69.114.117.103 19:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)

How do I delete this article?

This article is crap, so how do I delete it?--Beguiled 20:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I now see the hopw to page on article deletion, but don't understand it. Can someone help me get this article deleted?--Beguiled 21:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Why do you want it deleted? It's an article detailing various conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11, which is definitely a notable topic. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You could tag it for AFD. See WP:AFD, there is an explanation of the process there. But, I will warn you that attempts to delete this article will most likely fail, and I know I personally would vote to keep. --Wildnox(talk) 22:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone else pointed that out to me, but I imagine I will mess things up by trying to go through that lengthy process. Wikipedia is in serious trouble if these kinds of articles are becoming the norm.--Beguiled 22:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It isn't a lengthy process, I've had many articles deleted before. Why exactly do you think the article should be deleted? --Wildnox(talk) 22:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I just think that the article makes Wikipedia look like something other than an encyclopedia.--Beguiled 22:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I honestly do think this is Encyclopedic, this is a notable controversy and is relatively well known and well enough sourced to qualify. Like I said before, you can nominate for deletion on WP:AFD it isn't a lengthy process it's only 3 steps, and it will likely be kept. --Wildnox(talk) 23:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

at Beguiled: the only thing we have to fear is fear itself

If you have a complaint, could you please be precise and specific? Personally, I disliked the late Saddam Hussein as a person but that is no reason to delete his article. — Xiutwel (talk) 01:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I left Beguiled a note on her talk page about how deletion works. I think some of the disagreement comes from our different understandings. To me, this page is about a particular type of sociological phenomenon. Others I think see it as a vehicle to either get the truth out, or to spread lies about 9/11. A few I'm afraid see it as a promotional vehicle. These differing perspectives will continue to cause tension. The way to deal with it is to remember we are all human (except these guys) - take it as easy as we can and keep it civil, and nuke to oblivion any links that try to use the page to sell a dvd. Considering the material, we do okay most of the time. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Reminder

With the the new congress all references relating to Rep. Curt Weldon should be changed to former Rep. Curt Weldon 69.114.117.103 06:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)

YouTube and similar references

Wikipedia dislikes copyright violations to the extent that referncing one is also considered bad practice. There is a move currently to remove all references to Youtube, google video, etc precisely because these are, generally, copyvios. This means that several of the references in this article are likely to be removed by those unfamiliar with the content.

It would be far better if an editor who is active in the article removed them one by one and migrated the references where possible to non copyvio references. Fiddle Faddle 08:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a note, but there is no ban on linking to YouTube or Google Video. Take each link on a one by one basis. If it links to a site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Please add relevant material from YouTube and Google Video that is not in violation of the owners copyright. This site benefits greatly from that.

• Wikipedia:External_links
• Wikipedia:External_links/YouTube

—Slipgrid 06:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Sysops block September 11, 2001 attacks article’s disucssion page to avoid "unoficial" (non-White House) discussions

I thought the latest work of federal authorities on Wikipedia would be of interest to editors of this article. That these feds do not allow sources from anyone outside the Bush administration has long been their policy by fiat. Now they refuse to even allow other views to be discussed on the article’s talk page. After entering into an edit war where authorities repeatedly blanked threads discussing "unofficial" sources. To end the edit war, authorities have now protected the page so that only sysops (mostly[?] federal agents) can edit the discussion. I'm not talking about the article being fully protected, I'm talking about the article’s associated discussion page.

• 03:29, 13 January 2007 Naconkantari (Talk | contribs) protected Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks (continued attacks from aged accounts [edit=sysop:move=sysop])

The notation “edit=sysop:move=sysop” means that only sysops may edit or move this page. Semi-protection is when autoconfirmed accounts may edit the page.This is unprecedented on Wikipedia as far as I know. No one else is welcome there now. You're free to read what the sysops say (if you love boredom), but no one else can post their views or discuss the article. Nothing is working on Wikipedia the way we've been told. Something must be done. Please help address this infestation of Wikipedia by what Wikipedia now dubs Clowns. --ScabbinOnTheAngels 08:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Feds? Amusing. If feds were after you, the above wouldn't have been allowed on this page, and for that matter, they might have bothered to ship you to GITMO. It looks to me more like those articles which are often filled with massively discredited theories are struggling to save time/effort on constantly reverting. Yes, the many authors know the pod/demolition/missile theories, but decided long ago to give them their own voice in this article, rather than cluttering the main article with allegations about jews/PNAC/aliens/LIHOP/MIHOP and their ilk. Ronabop 11:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The poster was blocked as a sock. Fiddle Faddle 12:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Templates

Seems ridiculous to now have TWO separate 9/11 CT templates. I'm removing the new one where I see it. Please do not create new templates which have no input -- at least delete the old template or we could just fill the pages will an ongoing series of "templates," each with partial lists of links to random "categories." bov 21:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The new template was created in response to the simple need for a navigation template with no commentary on the materials. The other template(s) add some form of possible POV framework and are not appropriate for all articles, and are disputed on some of them. They are more than simple navigation. Please do not use capital letters in discussions, they imply shouting. Fiddle Faddle 21:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I like both templates. Very helpful. --Tbeatty 22:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

know supporters of conspiracy

Image:EricWithoutHat.jpg should it be included in the article that this person supports the 9/11 conspiracy?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.69.63.254 (talk • contribs).

Groups and individuals challenging the official account of 9/11 might work, but we don't yet have a section for fictional characters. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, let's do it, but first Image:Kyle.gif we should introduce the culprit into September 11, 2001 attacks article. SalvNaut 20:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent... lol. DanCrowter 08:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

NY Times Article

Reference 197, "http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/21/national/21OHIO.html" brings us to a login page. Should it be removed, or replaced with another source ?
FiP ^{Как вы думаете?} 03:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how that is any different from citing a book that someone might not own, or would have to buy. In both cases we trust that the citation was made in good faith, and that those with access to it agree with the citation. 67.175.166.59 15:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The reference just needs to be fixed as a proper citation of the NYT. I'll have a look at it tomorrow.--Thomas Basboll 18:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find the NY times article; but I did find a Globe and Mail article that documentet the same facts. I've added the reference.--Thomas Basboll 07:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

propaganda

The current introduction reads:"The mainstream scientific community does not support the controlled demolition hypothesis and U.S. officials, mainstream journalists, and mainstream researchers have concluded that responsibility for the attacks rests solely with Al Qaeda." This is far too propagandist to be allowed to remain in the article which should be balanced in accord with standard editorial policy. Firstly, quoting a statement from NIST's Bush/Cheney advocates does not qualify as a valid assertion that the mainstream scientific community do not believe that WTC was brought down with demolition charges. If you want to put such a claim in the article you must provide evidence to prove that the majority of these 'specialists' - as the NIST authors characterise them - do not believe the demolition hypothesis to be credible. It is true that mainstream journalists have been rather uncritical in their reportage of 9/11 but as for 'mainstream researchers', it is unclear to whom the author of this sentence refers. Even a cursory look by the most modest intellect at the first-hand evidence in the public domain highlights major shortcomings and anomalies in the official propaganda. Every serious researcher I have encountered has concluded the Zelikow commission report to be utterly false and disingenuous avoiding all the important evidence which flatly contradicts the favoured official story. The belief that the attacks were committed by Al Qaeda is one that has been vigourously promoted and repeated but for which there is no evidence whatsoever, certainly none that would stand up in a court of law. It is therefore biased and, of course propagandist, that this sentence remain in the introduction. User:Langdell 23rd January 2007

Well I think your unsourced claim boils down to "I don't like the source". I do think though that the sentence should be rephrased. --Wildnox(talk) 01:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not a case of not liking the source. It is rather that the NIST report does not represent the views of the scientific community as it claims to do. Anybody with a knowledge of elementary physics knows that those three buildings (especially WTC7) did not come down at free fall speed due to fire or structural damage caused by the impact of the aircraft (WTC7 received no impacts from anything at all). The NIST spokespeople who have authored the document to which the footnote refers have done an admirable job of mystification to persuade ordinary mortals who do not have degrees in structural engineering that they do not have the insiders' knowhow to make their own minds up. But many a schoolboy will tell you that buildings do not fall down in such a manner because the laws of physics will not permit them. The World Trade Centre was one of the most structurally robust buildings ever built - designed to withstand far more serious disasters than fire and aircraft collision. But all this is superfluous. Anybody with any sense knows that even less robust buildings do not fall at freefall speed without controlled demolition. Every account of the evidence which contradicts the official propaganda is called a 'conspiracy theory'. But the 9/11 Commission Report is also a conspiracy theory but nobody bothers to point this out. Actually, one does not need even to develop a theory about the events of September 11th 2001 to know that there is a policy of disinformation; one has only to check the primary sources (video footage, eyewitness testimony etc) to know that the Commission has deliberately faslsified evidence that is available in the public domain. But though this evidence is there for people to see, people do not bother to check for themselves. So, for example, the claim that the September 11th attacks were perpetrated by Al Qaeda is well-known and widely held but such a claim is not supported by any available evidence. Given this fact, claims that responsibility for the attacks lie 'solely with Al Qaeda' should be qualified by a statement that conveys this fact to the reader. Otherwise Wikipedia becomes an agent of state propaganda. Best wishes. User:Langdell Tuesday 23rd January

Anyone who has truly observed the evidence noticed that the buildings fell in about 12 seconds, rather than the "free fall" time of 6 seconds. (All sources to the contrary are from within the conspiracy theory "walled garden".) The outside debris and visible collapse pattern occured at "free fall" speeds, as one one expect from debris which has separated from the structure. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Correction: 6.5s was free fall time for 7WTC, it was something like 9 for 1&2. The question here is not 'was it free fall exactly or slightly longer', but rather why wasn't it significantly (>2x) longer. SalvNaut 20:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

"Mainstream Researchers" is to vague a term. NIST did use many scientists knowledgeable in the field. The Academics that are skeptics or have alternative theories on the of the official theory have for the most part not been experts. So if "mainstream scientists" might be a bit strong a rewording of that phrase if it is to be accurate will not be a radical change. As for "mainstream media" I have argued why that description is dead accurate in earlier discussions. Indeed many conspiracy theorists have expressed repeated frustration at the mainstream worlds unwillingness to look at alternative theories. So the bottom line is while the the wording could use some tweaking its basic thrust is correct. 69.114.117.103 07:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)

Dr. Rubin is correct regarding the collapse time of the twin towers but not with respect to WTC7 (as the Polish gentleman correctly pointed out). This building did actually fall at freefall speed but was neither hit by an aircraft nor damaged by falling debris. According to the physics of moving bodies on the Earth, for such a building to collapse at freefall speed requires a huge amount of energy to overcome the mechanical resistance of the building's structure. Kerosine fires do not provide this level of energy. The fact that NIST have not come right out to testify to this fact demonstrates that they are being less than straightforward. That is why I say that any schoolboy of average intelligence could tell you that it is plain to see that WTC7 collapsed due to the energy of controlled demolition explosives. There is actually no other possible explanation according to known laws of physics. That NIST spokespeople have not told us this means that they cannot be trusted. That is why the NIST authors - who in their article scoff at 'outsiders' (ie. non-structural engineers) who provide explanations in accordance with known science - are in no position to guage the views of the 'mainstream scientific community'. In light of this one can see that the last sentence of the introduction is pure propaganda that seeks to avert an accurate appraisal of the facts. User:Langdell January 24th 2007. 22:14 GMT

Very funny.

The claim that the laws of physics somehow preclude a tall, skinny burning building from collapsing the way it did is a smokescreen. As is the veneer of sophistication adopted by those whose real purpose is to argue that the U.S. government conspired to secretly destroy the World Trade Center complex and attack itself. The "physics" claims are debunked here.--Mr. Billion 18:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

WTC7 was clearly hit by falling debris. Whether it was damaged by falling debris is difficult to determine, as it did collapse. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

"Was demolished" would be more accurate. 129.44.172.8 06:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

"Was demolished by falling debris"? I could go with that.... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe we can state WTC7 fell because ... or anything similar, it would have to be a statement that "It is believed ..." since as far as I recall the NIST has not even given their report on the matter. There is no "official" account of why WTC7 fell and how, just speculation. That is if you even take the NIST report to be "official" and factual. Please correct me if I am wrong however, I was informed the NIST would be releasing a draft at the beginning of this year. --NuclearZer0 13:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Editprotected

There is a dispute over Template:911ct; it should be removed until we reach some sort of consensus. Lovelight 04:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Protection is not an endorsement of the current version, the template stays while the pgae is locked. Cbrown1023 04:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Strange, but definitely useful. Lovelight 04:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Category sorting

I believe that [[Category:Alternative theories of September 11, 2001 attacks]] should be changed to [[Category:Alternative theories of September 11, 2001 attacks:*]], as this is clearly the main article of that category. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

 Done Cbrown1023 14:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what are you doing, but it appears that you are violating your own arguments? You denied any change to the template, and now you implemented some changes yourself? I'd suggest you revert this, or inform me where and how I can report this to some sort of higher authority. Lovelight 16:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Wrong talk page. If it's referring to {{911ct}}, I added a few more 9/11 conspiracy theories and theorists. You and Bov have been changing the purpose of the template. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to the fact that CBrown dismissed my edit request on technicality, while the moment later he broke that technicality and enlisted your POV. So its about double standards, not about the conspiracies. Lovelight 09:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

typos that must be changed

In Trivia "mr" should be "Mr." and "...." between Muslims" and "naturally" should be a comma as "...." generally means that text is being skipped over.

Then do it (when the protection comes off). (P.S. please sign your comments with 4~s) Pjbflynn 22:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Serious concirns

I have very serious concirns about this artical, it piles together a whole series of non-notibal theorys which contradict each other, many of which are presented as near fact, with very little explanation as to the fact that EVERY one has been destroyed by evidence, and experts. I would have put on the NPOV tag, but i can't. --Boris 1991 18:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It would be helpful if criticisms like this one were elaborated with examples. In this case, the best approach would be to point out the first example (starting at the top of the article) of a theory that is presented as a fact and/or without any mention of its being contradicted by official evidence and expertise.--Thomas Basboll 19:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course the theories are not just contradicted by official evidence, nor are they only in contrast to the "official account." Trying to frame them up as an alternative to "the official theory supported by the Bush administration" is at best tendentious. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure there's a sense in which you're right. "Official" is part of the CT jargon, though, and most of us now konw what it means. Like I say, whatever the criticism is, it's much easier to deal with if we have an example on the table.--Thomas Basboll 22:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Many groups and individuals challenging the official account identify as...
• 9/11 conspiracy theories generally start with dissatisfaction with the official explanation of 9/11. But criticism of the official account does not in and of itself constitute a conspiracy theory.
• ...to demonstrate the physical impossibility and circumstantial implausibility of the official account.
• Unlike the official account, which suggests that the perpetrators (the terrorists) got much more than they bargained for, conspiracy theorists assume...
• The official collapse mechanism...

Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I think when those sentences were written there was a section called "the official account" (now called "the mainstream account"). That section explained what CTists mean by "official" and how this differs from what most people believe happened on 9/11 (i.e., the "mainstream" account). (The best examples are probably the collapse of WTC7 or the existence of Vigilant Warrior: these are officially recognized but not really "mainstream" facts.) But are you saying that there isn't an official line on 9/11?--Thomas Basboll 22:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

No doubt things drift as changes made in one place are not matched elsewhere. There isn't only an official account, and whatever official account there is, is not what the conspiracy theories stand in opposition to. To assert that there is (depending on context), is to promote the conspiracists' view that it's them against Dick Cheney. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Please say a bit more about this. I think the solution lies in a good section on what CTists are "against". You're right that to suggest it's Cheney and/or Bush is too narrow. (I'm not sure the article does that.) But I do think that the CTs are opposed to a more or less unified and well-established consensus about what happened. This consensus is made up of the evidence that Boris started this thread with: i.e., that which "destroys" the CTs. Surely to do that it would have to oppose them.--Thomas Basboll 23:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll check in again tomorrow. Maybe others have thoughts. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The original "official story" section put in by me was meant to give the reader an idea of what the conspiracy theorists are disputing. It was not a Bush Administration theory so much as as it was renamed a mainstream consensus centered around the 9/11 commission and later the NIST findings. In that sense it was a general government theory. It was not meant to be very specific there could be some disagreements within the general consensus. Basically Al-Queda did it themselves without foreknowledge of the U.S. government and the buildings collapsed as a a direct and indirect results of the planes crashing. The non specific warnings were ignored due to a failure of imagination. In describing conspiracy theories we are describing their POV so by it's very nature our description of them will be have a POV and the theories will contradict each other. I do disagree that the evidence against the theories have not been presented. Most theories have cites rebutting them and the bottom of the article as a whole list of anti-conspiracy links. 69.114.117.103 07:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)

Please add citation

In the section "Pentagon not hit by an airplane" there is a "citation needed" tag for the statement:

The first person to suggest that a missile hit the Pentagon was Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in an interview on October 12, 2001

The citation for this is:

<ref>{{cite web|title=DoD News: Secretary Rumsfeld Interview with Parada Magazine |date=October 12, 2001 |publisher=Parade Magazine (republished by Defense Department) |url=http://web.archive.org/web/20011119092506/http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Nov2001/t11182001_t1012pm.html}}</ref>

Please input this, thank you. --NuclearZer0 00:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for finding that citation. -- Natalya 01:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Now include the quote of what he actually said in context, so the reader can see if "The first person to suggest that a missile hit the Pentagon was Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld..." is an accurate characterization. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thats more of a major edit, maybe together we can come up with a wording. How about expanding it to say:

• The first person to suggest that a missile hit the Pentagon was Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in an interview on October 12, 2001<ref>{{cite web|title=DoD News: Secretary Rumsfeld Interview with Parada Magazine |date=October 12, 2001 |publisher=Parade Magazine (republished by Defense Department) |url=http://web.archive.org/web/20011119092506/http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Nov2001/t11182001_t1012pm.html}}</ref>, which helped set up this claim. Rumsfeld is quoted as saying "Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center"<ref>{{cite web|title=DoD News: Secretary Rumsfeld Interview with Parada Magazine |date=October 12, 2001 |publisher=Parade Magazine (republished by Defense Department) |url=http://web.archive.org/web/20011119092506/http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Nov2001/t11182001_t1012pm.html}}</ref>

Please also note the admin adding the citation is not endorsing, to have information added you should use the correct template. --NuclearZer0 14:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

"Conspiracists say the first person to suggest..." might work. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems like un-necessary specification without proper citation specifying who. How about: "The root of the missile theory lies in an interview given by Donald Rumsfeld on October 12, 2001 for Parade Magazine where he is quoted as saying ..." Since we know where the root is, we can say that factually without stating "conspiracists" which we cannot state are the only people to say it. --NuclearZer0 15:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The root is the pre-logical conviction that an event of such magnitude must have had a corresponding cause. The belief in a government conspiracy comes first, then the "evidence" to justify it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but that sounds like a psychological statement without a citation. It also sounds like a blanket statement. Your proposed version states that only "conspiracy theorists" would state that Rumsfeld stated XYZ, which is clearly false. Any other reccomendations for wording perhaps? How about changing "root" to "start", since that is what the article states. --NuclearZer0 15:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

How do you feel about writing: "The first person to suggest that a missile hit the Pentagon was, in fact, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who seems to have mispoken in an interview on October 12, 2001"? I think it leaves the wrong impression (and a rather strange one) the way it is, which suggests that Rumsfeld intentionally referred to a missile going into the building. (Even CTists take this to be a slip, right?)--Thomas Basboll 18:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

While weasel words tells us not to use these statements I would settle on changing "seems" to "is believed". While I believe it was a slip and he meant the planes were used as missiles, we do not have a citation stating it was. --NuclearZer0 19:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

"Official version" is a conspiracy theory

I'm sure I'm the millionth person to point this out, but the "official version" is the very definition of a conspiracy theory, involving as it does a plurality of people working together to bring about the attacks, the facts of which remain unproven. So this article should also have a section dedicated to the official version, linking to the main article. Or better still rename this one.

Straussian 13:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

That is an interesting point in symantics. I am not sure what you would name this article to differ it however, all versions involve a conspiracy. --NuclearZer0 14:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Probably not the millionth, but conspiracy theorists do occasionally try to obfuscate things by calling terrorist attacks "conspiracy theory". You might check out our article on conspiracy theory and contrast that with the concept of criminal conspiracy. In the English language the terms "criminal conspiracy" and "conspiracy theory" happen to contain a common word, but they are still different concepts; don't be confused by homonyms! Weregerbil 14:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the millionth to think it but not point it out on Wikipedia

But yes, the entire CONCEPT of this page seems to have a bias built in that is impossible to overcome via discussion WITHIN the page. In general, "conspiracy theory" is a smear term, not anything remotely like a neutral description, even though one can, with effort, drag a bit of fairly neutral meaning out of the words "conspiracy" and "theory".

One extreme uses it as a snide dismissal, and another extreme embraces it for "Bush is child of Bigfoot and Elvis" or "reptiles walk among us" theories. But certainly no citizen group who is trying to bring criminal activity, whether burglary rings, drug manufacturers, or environmental violations, is going to go to their mayor or District Attorney and say "we have a conspiracy theory".

Kind of like having a page on the "F***in' Commies" attempt to describe the differences between Norway and Denmark in regard to social services.

24.17.180.126 09:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I largely agree with that last remark. The question is: what would it mean to deal with these issues OUTSIDE this page? Until now, this page has served mainly as a lightning rod against "disruptions" of the September 11 attacks article and the collapse of the World Trade Center article (and some related pages). I'm beginning to think, however, that many of the facts that are only reported here would make useful contributions to the "main" (or mainstream) articles. That's the real challenge now. I.e., to get some of the close reading of the official record that is the preferred domain of conspiracy theorists into the articles where (and how) they belong. Reading the non-CT articles (at least until recently) one got the impression that the main thing that went wrong on 9/11 happened in the hearts of the terrorists.--Thomas Basboll 10:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

There are 27 pages of history which clearly shows that zillions of fair-minded editors were trying to improve those mainstream articles you folks are talking about. There were some obstacles however, namely, some zealous editors who decided that we need a "hegemony on truth" (or however you wish to call that mockery there). I'm not sure why you choose to address your concerns here and not there, but I'll support any movement and improvement because this status quo is unbearable. I'm certain that we could sustain it through edit warring in months, maybe even years to come, but there will be another anniversary, and there will be another memorial and each and every time Wikipedia will look poorer in its disgrace and misery. Lovelight 01:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair comment. I've been focusing on the WTC collapse (and I am raising these issues there, with moderate success). If I have time I'll look at the 9/11 article too. I think you raise a very good point about the anniversary. It is possible to write these articles in anticipation of particular kinds of readers/potential editors. I.e., to, in a sense, "brace them" with information that addresses concerns on both sides.--Thomas Basboll 08:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This is another reason why the title should be changed. Because if the current title is considered as formally accurate, which is dubious, then it says almost nothing about the subject. All it says specifically about the subject is related to its implicit meaning, which can be roughly translated as "laughable theories on 9/11". If only the explicit, formal meaning is taken into account, then the title is similar to "theories on 9/11 involving one or more airplanes".

Let me explain this with an example. When the Reichstag fire happened, the nazists blamed the communists and/or the Jews, while the communists blamed the nazists themselves. These where all "conspiracy theories" in a technical sense; none of which, coincidentally, may be historically true because it is now considered at least plausible that the fire had been provoked by a lone pyromaniac. Since one person is a madman, but even just two is a conspiracy by definition, it is reasonable to ask the question "are there possible theories on 9/11 not involving one or more conspiracies?" The answer is well, in principle yes. Such a theory would involve a single mad scientist sabotaging several airplanes and remote controlling them on different targets, meanwhile hijacking radio and telephone commnications and substituting them with fake ones, and possibly (depending on versions) firing a homemade missile on the pentagon and igniting controlled demolition of WTC7, just to confuse investigators, all by himself. Since this is probably well beyond the capabilities of any mad scientist, it should be assumed that any theory explaining the facts of 9/11 involves a conspiracy of some nature, that is, in the formal but not in the practical sense of the term, a "conspiracy theory". Massimamanno 11:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for new link to be added

I would like to have someone add a link to these pages. Change the titles if you wish.

• 9/11 News & Info (a wiki)
• 9/11 Pentagon Attack Video Frames Studied Closely
• 9/11 Investigation

South Park

The South Park reference should be moved to the "Trivia" section, as it offers no real criticism.--Harpakhrad11 21:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Objectivity

It is my humble view that we should try to be objective. When doing this, we should ONLY focus on the EXISTENCE of the theories and their CONTENTS. Only by doing this can we avoid disputes about the truthness of the theories. In fact, we can rule them out. This is an article about opinions, and opnions ABOUT opinions have no place here.

This approach has been a success on the norwegian discussion page, and I ask for someone to take the same stand here. it is easy: Does something written in the article help with regard to the focus on EXISTENCE and CONTENTS of the theories? No? Rule it out. This is true objectivity!

It is of course important to take the same stand in both directions: existence and content...

Later, Norwegian user Torb255 :-)

Proposed name change to "minority views on 9/11"

I propose the above name change, of course with a redirect from the current title. I believe, looking at the ongoing discussion, that no one in good faith can deny that the current title, although maybe formally accurate, is pejorative in nature. And, I wish to add, modern semantics states that the "meaning" of a term should include not only its formal referent(s), but also its social, psychological and historical implications as defined by pragmatics. So, in this sense the current title is probably not accurate enough. On the other hand, please refrain from presenting polls showing that, in some region/state/city, opposing views are actually held by a majority. Here, "minority view" is meant in the broadest possible sense, i.e. worldwide, or "a minority of in principle reliable sources and/or researchers". But meanwhile, it avoids the post hoc refutation that a source is labeled as unreliable because of the very fact that it supports a "conspiracy theory". I believe that this term is neutral, informative and accurate.

I am unaware of whether this suggestion has been made in the past. Even if so, this is probably irrelevant because 1) it was probably done using different arguments and 2) the 9/11 events are the most important single event of the first decade of the XXI century, as almost all history from then on can be said to originate one way or another from it. Its significance is probably starting to fade about now or in a couple of years from now. So, it will be studied for centuries and many different interpretations will be given. And therefore, use of language regarding it will change, gradually losing its emotional and ideological aspects and becoming more and more scientific. So, even if this term was proposed and rejected say 2 years ago, which I do not know, I ask you please to write a rational rebuttal here and now and not refer to past discussions, even if your views on the title have remained identical. Massimamanno 10:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Weakly opposed to the name change; strongly if it involves taking the article and the participants out of the relevent Conspiracy theory categories. WP:NC(CN) strongly suggests that the most common name for the subject should be used, which is "conspiracy theories". That guideline does offer an exception if the name is commonly considered to be offensive, which does not seem to be the case here. "Commonly considered to be pejorative in nature" is not listed as an exception, and, in my opinion, should not be listed as an exception. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"I am unaware of whether this suggestion has been made in the past." See the extensive archives, and the numerous proposals here, at WP:WTA, Conspiracy theory, etc. "Even if so, this is probably irrelevant because 1) it was probably done using different arguments..." No, same one. "It's pejorative" has been done to death in all its variations. My position is that since they are conspiracy theories, and the reliable sources call them conspiracy theries, we should continue call them conspiracy theories. If you want more than that, please see the archives. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I am of course aware that name changes have been proposed in the past. I am not aware of whether this particular name change has been proposed. I did not find it in the archives, but I did not have time to check with extreme accuracy. In any case thanks for your rebuttal but I believe you should consider the fact that proponents of alternative explanations do not call themselves "conspiracy theorists". The line between pejorative and offensive is thin, and probably most people who in good faith believes having found facts which contradict the mainstream explanation find the term offensive. "Conspiracy theorist(s)" is used several times in the article, because of its title.Massimamanno 23:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed with point being brought up, quite similar to how Osama bin Laden is not called a terrorist, though RS sources call him that. Its a pejorative term and its dealt with in WP:WTA and other articles which highlite when the common name should not be used. --NuclearZer0 19:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree. This is just to vague. It could mean minority viewpoint of forign policy decisions that led up to 9/11 or it could be interpreted on how black people view 9/11 69.114.117.103 06:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)
• Agreed – apparently this is a part of a broader discussion; imo there should be name change and it should be such amendment that will satisfy POV's of all involved parties. Since I don't agree with assertion that these are minority views I'd rather go with title which will recognize both alternative views & conspiracy theories. Lovelight 12:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Disagree It passes the duck test for being a conspiracy theory. The public at large recognises it as a conspiracy theory. Minority views? Would that be the view of red haired gay black dentists? A "minority view" legitimises the unproven, unprovable, career, wealth and notoriety generating accusations that are conspiracy theories. Thus changing the title to this pushes a POV by choosing an uncommon title that is not in the vernacular. Fiddle Faddle 17:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • comment – yes, but something in line with alternative views & conspiracy theories of 9/11 does address both concerns, right? Lovelight 18:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Wouldnt you agree calling bin Laden a terrorist, passes the Duck Test? --NuclearZer0 18:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Disagree Maybe this is circular reasoning, but after reading the conspiracy theory entry in Wikipedia, I can't see any reason why this article should have the name changed. The "conspiracy theory" label doesn't imply truth or fabrication. There are many people who don't believe in "official" versions of the events of 9/11, and who believe that the US government and/or other groups were involved in a conspiracy to commit 9/11. Whether or not those beliefs are true or false, the "conspiracy theory" is the clearest and most accurate label that can be applied to them. Cogswobble 16:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Disagree. 'Conspiracy theory' is not a criticism, or an accusation of unpopularity. For example, a poll showed that over 70% of people believed that there was some sort of conspiracy concerning JFK's assassination. Yet we still refer to 'JFK conspiracy theories'. I see no reason here to depart from the usual Wikipedia tendency to use the most accurate name for the subject (or, where there are multiple equally acceptable names, the most common one) as the name for the article. Cynical 21:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree The phrase 'Conspiracy theory' carries strong connotative meanings of unreasonable paranoia on the part of the theorists, despite the fact that the denotative definitions of the separate words lack those meanings.

When name change is considered in a cost-benefit analysis, the article wins neutrality and loses no audience because the current "conspiracy theory" title can be redirected, with cost so small that it can be considered zero for all practical purposes. The price of change is that someone must expend the effort.

If the status quo is kept, no one needs to spend the energy of change. However, the title will retain non-neutrality.

Are there any costs or benefits I have missed? If not, the only decision to be made is:

• Is the effort required to change the title worth more or less than additional benefit gained by neutrality? (Change is a component of the collective reputation enhancement of wikipedia as an unbiased reference leading to greater use and benefit to everyone.)

By this standard, it should be done by someone, but for me, the cost of changing it myself is too high, as I am new to wiki editing. I don't know that I could do it correctly, or that I've even got authority to do it on a subject of such important controversy. Though I would be bold and do it if "bravery" is all that is required. Still, it is prudent to wait and see if anyone can show this cost-benefit analysis is incomplete. If not, I will try to change the article myself next month.

Once changed, the cost-benefit of reversion would balance an editors effort cost vs. the benefit of a loss of neutrality, which makes no sense, so it is probable that the article would stay named "alternative theories". -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ace Frahm (talk • contribs). 14:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose (and disagree with previous). To call them (the theories) anything but "conspiracy theories" is a violation of (at least) WP:NPOV and WP:NC(CN). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• strongly agree: Name calling is juvenile, not to mention inherently pov, disruptive, unencyclopedic and just plain mean spirited. Oh, and btw, it is a form of bullying. Ombudsman 21:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• I still oppose this, for all the reasons in the archives here and elsewhere. There is nothing new here, except Ombudsman's delightful condemnation of those juenile, mean-spirited bullies who call names. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

An issue of emphasis

Does anyone feel like the article places too much emphasis on MIHOP theories, like controlled demolition, and too little on LIHOP theories, such as surrounding Bush's earlier orders to the Civil Air Patrol. In fact, there are very few people who believe MIHOP theories, but the Zogby polls shows that quite a lot of people tacitly suppose LIHOP theories, so LIHOP its much more notable than MIHOP and should not be drowned out. I don't know how to fix this, but the MIHOP types will always write more, so maybe the article can be split or else long MIHOP parts moved off into their own article?

For example, controlled demolition already has its own article so surely we can shorten its section here. And surely theories about nukes or energy weapons don't deserve more than one sentence here (as they are part of that other article and quite a fringe thing).

Now most other MIHOP sections don't have their own article already, but they are long enough to survive as independent article. Seperating some of the longer stranger ones will make the LIHOP stuff far more readable. What do peopel think? JeffBurdges 19:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

LIHOP MIHOP? --NuclearZer0 18:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Let It Happen On Purpose V Made It Happen On Purpose -- Lovelight 18:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Gracias. I would think expanding this article first with as much information as possible would be the first step, once it overflows, then break the largest sections into their own articles and shorten them here into summaries of their larger articles. --NuclearZer0 18:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

My point was that these sections really are long enough. Even the stuff on controlled demolition here is long enough for its own article, and it already has its own article! It really should be trimmed down. Otoh, LIHOP stuff, like around the Civil Air Patrol, doesn't even get mentioned. JeffBurdges 02:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Slips of the tongue

With regards to the Silverstein's slip of the tongue and building 7: The FEMA report (May, 2002) states that: "no manual firefighting operations were taken by FDNY." Therefore the man couldn't have "Rescue Me" on the mind, now could he? And about Flight 93, why is there no reference to the Rumsfelds (mis)fortunate flow of thoughts? The man said: "the people who… …shot down the plane over Pennsylvania". Don't you think that such takes deserve to be enlisted in the article? Lovelight 19:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the silverstein line would go to support the idea of controlled demolition. If there is a section on planes shooting down the airliners, then the Rumsfeld quote should go in it, or a section created if it can be done by WP:RS standards and that quote used in that. --NuclearZer0 19:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

5 Israelis died on 9/11?

The citation used for that statement in this wiki article does not seem to contain that 'fact'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.170.96.119 (talk • contribs) 06:46, 15 February 2007.

You mean the citation referring to the article "Five Israeli victims remembered in capital"? I Googled around a little and found a dead link that could be resuscitated with Archive.org. Here's the article. Can we get an admin to add this link to the article? --Mr. Billion 09:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems perfectly fine without the link to me, if the article actually contains that reference. Other admins may differ, of course. In any case, the correct way to request this is with the {{editprotected}} template. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Selective Quotes?

Since there is no quote I am not sure what this is reffering to, but since you reverted me I would also like an explanation for this one [8]. Thank you. PS do not move this, MONGO states its the proper place for this question since its about the article and he will only answer it here =) --NuclearZer0 13:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Request from user talk page

Dear Tom Harrison,

As I am not clever enough to use a talk page to correct the "9/11 Conspiracy Theories" article, I am appealing to you to correct what it says about me

In a Wikipedia article on “9/11 Conspiracy Theories,” the following false statement is made about me.

"Peter Dale Scott points out what he says are similarities between the assassination of JFK and the events of 9/11. Among many arguments he makes is that on September 11, at 9:59 the FBI already had names of 3 out of the 4 hijackers of Flight 93, at which time NORAD, according to the 9/11 Commission, wasn't yet aware that Flight 93 had been hijacked. (This Scott finds similar to the situation when Oswald's description was released immediately after the JFK assassination).[32]"

(“9/11 conspiracy theories,” Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories)

I accept full responsibility for having originated this error, because I did make this claim in an hour-long talk on 18 November 2007. However, as I no longer trust the source I used for the claim, I no longer make it. On the contrary, in my edited text of my remarks (posted on December 20, 2006) I restated my remarks about the FBI’s identifications on 9/11, to eliminate the reference to the Flight 93 hijackers:

"Now the parallel to that for 9/11 is, I have to say, even more astounding, because of Richard Clarke, who was director for counter-terrorism activities in the White House, and a very important eyewitness. His book Against All Enemies is almost totally ignored by the 9/11 Commission, and it had to be ignored by the Commission because it is at odds, in many important respects, with what the 9/11 Report says (which I will get back to). But he tells us that at 9:59 am on September 11, which is the time when the second tower collapses, the North Tower, the FBI already had a list of the alleged hijackers. [5] "This is extraordinary in the first place because the FBI always says about itself that it doesn’t do much intelligence in the field of terrorism; its specialty is criminal investigation afterwards. They had the names of hijackers at 9:59; at 9:59 am Flight 93 had not yet crashed. And even more astonishingly, if we believe the 9/11 Report (which of course on this point I do not believe), NORAD, which was searching for the hijacked planes, wasn’t aware that Flight 93 had been hijacked until 10:08, which is nine minutes later." (“JFK and 9/11: Insights Gained from Studying Both,” by Dr. Peter Dale Scott, Global Research, December 20, 2006, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=SCO20061220&articleId=4207) It is clear that I am not now making the claim which the Wikipedia article attributes to me in the present tense, citing my original talk as given, but not my corrected text.

I would like to say that in general I am admirer of Wikipedia’s concept and process, and have belatedly come to use it as a research resource. I would say the same of the article on “9/11 Conspiracy Theories.” Even though there are many details in the article I disagree with, I would commend the article on the whole as a conscientious collective effort to grope towards a consensus view.

But I do not now make the claim about the three hijackers on Flight 93 which the article attributes to me in the present tense. More importantly, I do not now believe the claim. I would therefore be grateful to have the entire paragraph removed, as it is a disservice to the truth. I trust I will not need to seek legal assistance towards this end.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.131.180.192 (talk • contribs).

Should be easy to verify, have him edit his UC Berkely page to state this view and out it goes from the article. Other then that, no real way to verify an anons comments. --NuclearZer0 21:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Based on this request and the included link, I'm going to pull the paragraph. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with that, I think it should be cited as past tense, till it can be proven the anon is real, espcially since that site doesnt meet WP:RS --NuclearZer0 21:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe readd the paragraph but comment it out for now until we sort this out? --Wildnox(talk) 22:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I think Tom made the right call. In fact, anyone could have removed that paragraph on the ground that it is unreliably sourced and (as PD Scott points out) a more reliable source of Scott's opinions says something different (though allowing a similar conclusion). I don't think we should quote people from amateur video published online. It's mainly a reliability issue; but more generally I think we should not make such remarks binding by including them in an encyclopedia the minute they leave someone's mouth.--Thomas Basboll 22:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

What is this? As far as I can decipher, FBI acknowledged having a list of the hijackers… and that acknowledgment is now removed from the article? Lovelight 09:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a posting about it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Possible COI to edit protected article. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

BBC programme

BBC are making a programme called 9/11: The Conspiracy Files to be shown on Sunday 18 February 9pm British time. It's receiving first page coverage on the website as well so might lead to wider interest. 80.47.81.214 15:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

We could add an external link, unless people object. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Text of proposed link, moved from September 11, 2001 attacks: BBC's Timeline: 9/11; Key events in the growing number of conspiracy theories surrounding the 9/11 attacks (Peter Grey 17:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC))

Just to share, there are actually two different versions of that documentary. One will serve as the greatest whitewash in history; other could restore the faith in investigative journalism. Which one gets to be aired? Guess we'll know soon… Lovelight 00:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Will this program be downloadable or eventually air on BBC America? 69.114.117.103 14:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)

Yep, seen it on google videos, not very good i thought but hey. just search 911 conspiracy files on google videos and it comes up. DanCrowter 14:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Page protection

This page has been protected for a while (since January 25). Editing warring was over the template, but think/hope we are beyond that and we can try going back to semi-protection? --Aude (talk) 19:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

UFO-reference

The contended UFO-reference offend obviously against the policy of No original research. Where is the context to 9/11? Please cite authors who try to debunk 9/11 conspiracy theories and who cite this poll as an argument. Otherwise we have a context implicated by wiki-authors, which is undoubtedly irregular!--87.78.80.234 18:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Time For A Reality Check

It's time to wind up this curiously paranoid phenomenon in the civil discourse of our times. The conspiracy stories are all wrong. All of them. The government is not out to get you. Never was. Never will be. There are sometimes things which happen which are particularly sad, and particularly hurtful to people who have already been victimized by tragedy, and so some of the saddest particulars are not necessarily discussed by responsible people, out of respect or general understanding that it is not their job to bring it up or go on about it. They leave it for another time, for someone else to deal with when the time is right. 9/11 did, in fact, contain some of those sad elements. None of them, however, involved government plans to do wrong. Most of the conspiracy stories are simply paranoid, or at best total misinterpretations of the evidence. One story, for example, which has been making the rounds is the Russo fright about the new identity cards. If you are reading this, you are using a computer. That means the government already has the means to do everything Russo says the identity cards will introduce as some sort of new threat to your personal security. Has the government censored you, erased you, taken away your bank accounts, or otherwise done anything to interfere with your life? No. And they're not going to. It's your government, for heaven's sake. The only thing new about the identity card is this: it is hard to counterfeit, and should slow down identity theft and slow down counterfeit identity crimes. That's about all. The people who have believed in conspiracy stories will wake up one day and realize that they have been a bit crazy and made fools of themselves. They have also scared a few people unnecessarily, at a time when we are all trying to overcome a real scary thing, which is the cult of radical religious violence. Pull yourselves together and give your heads a shake... you've got a great country, and the many efforts your government has made, and is making, to establish your greater security, or prepare for possibly large sudden problems like 9/11 presented, may not be the most brilliant or may never be required, but at least they're trying to be a little bit ready for anything. I agree with the girl who said this discussion should be erased... a simple and direct suggestion from somebody with plain old common sense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.216.236.248 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 21 February 2007.

Pih, what a stirring speech, benevolent government which let three thousand (six with that Iraqi escapade) of its own people to be killed. Identity cards? Call for censorship? What are you mumbling about? Weirdo… Lovelight 00:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

An estimated 25 to 45 percent of the American Public disagrees with you making the 9/11 conspiracy theories a political phenomenon big enough to be article worthy period. It may be my government but it is made up of people most of whom want to help me some of whom are lazy and some of whom are evil. America is a great country but you seemed to have forgotten that the country was founded on great skepticism of government motives. You talk of the cult of religious violence but if you bothered to read the article you will find that many 9/11 conspiracy theorist not only agree that it exists but it is the central point of many LIHOP theories. They talk about some government officials letting it happen to wake the country up to the great danger this “cult” presents. You say that all of the conspiracy theories will be proven wrong but it will never happen even if 9/11 was solely a Bin Ladin inspired operation the world does not work this way. In short you are going to have to deal with it. I am not unsympathetic to what this entails. I hold a strong opinion that global warming is not caused by humans. This a small minority opinion these days. The media tells me my point of view is not reputable my friends ridicule me and in some cases relationships have been strained and it is not something I would bring up in a job interview. But unlike you I am not so arrogant as to tell Al Gore to stop showing his movie or ask people not to discuss the matter in front of me because it makes me uncomfortable . I DEAL with it and like or not you are going to have to do the same. 69.114.117.103 04:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)

Where Should These Links Go?

Any suggestions?

• A 9/11 conspiracy virus is sweeping the world, but it has no basis in fact - George Monbiot
• 9/11 fantasists pose a mortal danger to popular oppositional campaigns - George Monbiot

Tomandlu 09:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The second article hits on a point mentioned in the first that the 9/11 truth movement hurts the left so it might be overkill. I would put it on the bottom in the "Debunking Conspiracy theories" section. Also this belongs in the Loose Change article somewhere. This is important to put in because it does reflect the left wing version of the incompetence theory that is different in emphisis from the 9/11 commissions. This is a POV I am seeing expessed more and more often 69.114.117.103 11:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)

Page move

I don't think the new title, with capital letters, is consistent with Wikipedia:Naming conventions. I plan to move it back. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I concur. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Beat you to it. JDoorjam JDiscourse 17:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Passenger Manifest

This is a double post intended to increase the visibility of this talk. I hope you don't mind I really want answers to this.

I didn't believe the conspiracy theories at first; but now I don't know.

I was hoping some of you experienced wikipedians can try to figure out why no one is questioning the passenger manifest.

The passenger manifest must be compiled before a plane takes off; yet the official passenger manifest fluctuated for over a month after 9/11.

What's more, the majority of the dead "passengers" have no family members coming forward to either accept government compensation or saying anything to the media, the blogosphere, and various other 'internets'. The people related to those dead at ground zero are very vocal in comparison.

Also, there are no arabic names on the passenger manifest. 19 arabic "hijackers" could not have snuck onboard all these planes.

Also, can somebody verify if two people who were reported dead on the plane (and their families recieved mysteriously undamaged id and credit cards) but weren't on the passenger manifest actually existed?

Please I think this is the most telling piece of evidence against the corrupt Bush administration.

Surely you've noticed, like I have, that the relative dearth of passenger relatives indicates a fabricated list of passengers!

http://www.911myths.com/html/no_hijackers_on_the_manifests.html

Geni 02:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey what about the video of something odd hiting the pentagon.

http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm

Why does the nose of a commercial airliner look like the thin sliver of a nose that is more indicative of a small plane or missile?

I think a notable vid is

The 9/11 mysteries one.

How could you watch that and dismiss the so-called "conspiracy theories"

The BBC was in on it too!

Hey ho.

I know that the article is already very long, so maybe this detail won't make the cut. But there is a new (to me) allegation that the BBC had foreknowledge about 9/11 or at least the demolition of WTC7. There is a video allegedly showing a BBC reporter discussing the collapse of WTC7 twenty minutes before it occurred and with a standing WTC7 in the background.

See www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/260207building7.htm]. Phiwum 13:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I should say that my above description is a bit misleading. Some conspiracy theorists suggest that the government accidentally released a press release on the collapse early and that the BBC reported on it without question. So this clip need not imply that the BBC was "in on it". (As with most 9/11 issues, multiple interpretations are possible.) Phiwum 15:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The idea that the "mainstream|corporate|Jewish media" was in on it has a lot of currency. Maybe in the section Government foreknowledge. The section now is not limited to governments, so the title could be changed to just Foreknowledge. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Much more mundane, the page size

We're up to 114k, 72 seconds to download the total page over a 56K modem[9]. We might want to start thinking of logical places to start splitting data out. Ronabop 06:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I would say we need to cut a lot of repetitive material, and remove things that are almost entirely promotional. We do not need yet more pages of conspiracism. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Best way to prove

Someone should take every name on the passenger lists and try to confirm their existence.

It would be a lot harder for the conspiracy to be true if everyone on the list actually existed and died at that time; and has relatives to confirm this.

As far as I'm aware only a few relatives are known (especially the pilots wives odd enough).

I dunno I just want to find something to help bring Bush down and the only way I can think is to plunge into the internets.

Perhaps you should make this suggestion on some forum dedicated to discovering the truth about 9/11. This talk page is for discussing changes to the article, not for original research that either implicates or exonerates Bush. Phiwum 17:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You're a fool Phiwum this is a conspiracy theory page trying to become a conspiracy reality page; therefore it is in the best interests of wikipedians who want the "truth" in their online encyclopedia to find out whether these conspiracies are merely conspiracies OR fact.

Wikipedia policy is perfectly clear. We should not include original research because that is not the role of an encyclopedia. You are welcome to find the truth on your own and publish the results. If the result counts as a reliable source, then the information may appear here. But we do not do original research and publish the results here.

Anyway, good luck with the revolution, but just do it somewhere else. Thanks. Phiwum 03:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of Greg Jenkin's reference

What is the issue with the inclusion of this refuation of the space beams?

"physicist Greg Jenkins has written a refutation of the energy beam claims in a letter to the Journal of 9/11 Studies."

What is the violation? Please explain. bov 02:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Journalof911studies.com is only a reliable source for what its operator thinks. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about describing it as if "he says" it refutes it or "he refutes it," I'm asking why the content of the reference should be removed when J911S already cited all over many articles as a source for people's comments and papers. bov 02:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm misuderstanding. What do you want to change about the article? Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Title of article is still blatantly POV

It is self-evident that the title is POV and a smear, since the word is a smear by definition. Although Al Qaeda terrorists did indeed plot to attack the U.S.(although they would not have succeeded without Administration complicity), saying this is so is not called "conspiracy theory," because "conspiracy theory" is a loaded smear to surreptiotiously call a claim false. This is obviously and heavily POV, and the issue was avoided in the debate through equivocation and side-stepping.

71.221.89.250 06:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Calling complicity claimants "conspiracy theorists" (a separate issue from title)

This is more egregious and more undeniably POV. Calling those who claim complicity "conspiracy theorists" is going far beyond merely titling the article "9/11 Conspiracy Theories." To label the claimants themselves as "conspiracy theorists" is to imply that anyone who claims complicity in the attacks, even when based on sound factual evidence, has at best a wild imagination or is at worst schizophrenic. It labels complicity claimants, who are actually a large proportion of the population, as commonly engaged in inducing "conspiracy theories," when this claim has not support whatsoever. It would thus be far more NPOV to call them "those who suggest Administration complicity" or "those who suggest Pakistani and Administration complicity," etc, whatever the case may be.

The article is even written in a way that (intentionally?) repeatedly refers to the "conspiracy theorists," ramming it into the reader's mind that claims of complicity are paranoid nonsense, rather than simply stating the case as it is made.

71.221.89.250 06:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Who is O'Neill?

In the "Basic Argument" section, the article mentions a "government employee by the name of O'Neill". Does he have a first name? I thought it was John P. O'Neill at first, which would have made for a hell of a conspiracy theory.SuperToad64 20:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that would indeed be strange if it were John O'Neill, the FBI Al Qaeda expert who resigned shortly before 9/11, citing repeated blocking of his investigations into Al Qaeda by his superiors, because he was then offered a job in the WTC, where he was killed. Dead men tell no tales...

71.221.89.250 00:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

rationale for addition

The article intro does not make a distinction between the conclusions arrived at by alternate-conspiracy theorists, and the underlying factual assertions upon which those conclusions are based. The distinction is relevant and should be made clear. A non-mainstream factual interpretation does not necessarily invalidate a mainstream conclusion as to the ultimate responsibility for the attacks. dr.ef.tymac 02:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a distinction without a difference. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Please explain further. What specifically do you find fault with in the proposed addition? dr.ef.tymac 03:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Some of these conspiracy theories depend on alternate factual conclusions from public documents, documentary evidence and official statements of the events. Other conclusions originate from speculation and unsubstantiated inference, which is sometimes claimed as necessary since some information has not been made available to the public.

Conspiracy theories are little different from one another, whether they assert different conclusions from accepted facts, or assert different facts. They're still all conspiracy theories, involving hiding the truth by powerful cabal. Supporters of one conspiracy theory or another always insist "yes, the others are crazy, but my theory is actually true, so it must be made clear in some way that credible theories are different from the crazy one". The lead is not the place for these unsourced defenses of specific kinds of conspiracy theories that an editor happens to prefer. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting general viewpoint, but it is argumentative and doesn't answer the question. What specifically is wrong with the proposed addition? Blanket generalizations can be fun, but are a little off-topic here. So far you've given no specifics, making it impossible to improve any potential deficiencies with the proposed contribution. What in the addition constitutes a "defense" of any particular viewpoint (be it mainstream or otherwise)? dr.ef.tymac 03:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I've specifically stated what is wrong; it is original research that asserts there is some sort of significant differences between two different "types" of conspiracy theories, even though that distinction is insignificant, and regardless it's certainly not specific to 9/11 conspiracy theories. If it belonged anywhere (which is doubtful), it would be in a more general article about conspiracy theories (e.g. Conspiracy theory), and even there it would have to be attributed, and it certainly wouldn't belong in the lead. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, just so we're both on the same page, my understanding is you find fault with these specific items:

• The content is not adequately sourced WP:NOR
• The content is not directly relevant to the subject matter of this article

Those are issues that can be adequately addressed, thanks for pointing them out. Points which still require clarification include:

• what exactly do you mean by "two different types of conspiracy theories" (the proposed addition makes no assertion whatsoever about the "types" of conspiracy theories)
• belongs in more general article about conspiracy theories (absent clarification, this point seems irrelevant since the proposed addition makes no generalized claims about "conspiracy theories" [see previous point])
• certainly wouldn't belong in the lead (please explain your rationale for this, personal preference? gut-level reaction? falsifiable standard or test? this will further help clarify so I know where you're coming from). Thanks mucho. dr.ef.tymac 03:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

1. You propose to divide conspiracy theories into two types, those that depend on alternative conclusions, and those that depend on alternative facts. It's unclear that this is anything but an arbitrary distinction.
2. If the distinction you make is indeed relevant and encyclopedic, then it would be true of all conspiracy theories, and not specific to 9/11 conspiracy theories. Therefore, if relevant, its exposition would belong elsewhere.
3. Even if everything else about this distinction were valid (that is was attributable, that it was unique to 9/11 conspiracy theories, etc.), it still does not appear to be important in any way. You'd have to also find reliable sources indicating that this wasn't some WP:NPOV#Undue weight small minority view.
4. The lead should summarize the most important information discussed in an article; this insertion doesn't summarize anything that is in the article, so far as I can tell, much less some important facet of the topic.

Hope that helps. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks it does help. It appears your decision to remove the content was based (at least partially) on a fudamentally incorrect interepretation of the addition itself, thus your findings follow from a faulty premise.

1. The addition makes no proposed "broad division" of conspiracy theories. Indeed, any such division (if one exists at all) is beyond the scope of this article. I'm glad we both agree that realm is off-topic, as it can now be dispensed with entirely as irrelevant (along with any ancillary discussions on the fundamental nature of "conspiracy theories" in general). Your mis-reading is indeed helpful, as it points to an effective alternate rephrasing.
2. You mention "importance" ... which almost answers my still-unanswered question about your standard of inclusion for the lead section, but it is still terribly vague. It would help if you could rephrase this in a way that indicates something a bit more tangible than (apparently) your own personal preference, so further additions can be streamlined according to a clearly-defined standard. Many thanks. dr.ef.tymac 04:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The broad division was quite clear, as explained; there was no "mis-reading" involved, you tried to divide conspiracy theories into two types. Importance is explained by WP:NPOV#Undue weight, not "personal preference". It's pretty clear at this point that no "rephrasing" will help this unattributed and original research insertion that also violates WP:LEAD. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

That's odd. You've made an ex-ante determination that your reading of the proposal is the only possible one, despite an explicit statement that your interpretation was not the intent of the contribution, at all. Just so I don't misinterpret, are you saying no matter what this contributor proposes to add to the article, and no matter how well-clarified, you intend to reject it? Please clarify and feel free to stick to specifics, as I'm sure we are both very familiar with the relevant policy pages that you keep linking to, and the generalized links and sweeping generalizations make it more (instead of less) difficult to understand what you mean and reach consensus, and I'm sure that's not what either of us wants. Thanks! dr.ef.tymac 05:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been quite specific, and your "intent" isn't all that relevant, as the words of the insertion were quite clear - it is not a matter of "interpretation". It would help if you would read the policy pages and guidelines involved, and make very specific statements as to how you think your proposed insertion might meet any of them; as mentioned, the relevant ones include WP:NOR, WP:NPOV#Undue weight, and WP:LEAD, among others. As it stands, the proposed insertion fails on so many grounds that it would really be impossible for it to be included; no amount of "clarification" can rescue an insertion that violates policy and guidelines on so many levels. It would also help if your rhetoric on this Talk: page were geared towards article content and policy, rather than obfuscation and straw man arguments, so that it would be easier to understand your points. For example, it's not at all helpful to pretend that my comments are "vague" in any way, given their excruciating specificity, especially when compared to your own meandering rhetoric. Nor is it helpful to be "glad" that we "can both agree" on points that we have clearly not agreed upon, or that I have "mis-read" items which I have quit obviously read and understood all too well, and therefore pretend consensus on that basis. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, dispensing with "meandering rhetoric" ... yes or no, do you agree with me that separation of conspiracy theories into "types" (and any other "generalized" discussion of conspiracy theories) is off-topic for this article (and discussion page)? dr.ef.tymac 05:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

If you insist in inserting such edits into the article (as you have), then they can't be off-topic, until you stop inserting such edits. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, yes or no, do you agree with me that separation of conspiracy theories into "types" is off-topic for this article? You can't get more excruciatingly specific than a yes or no answer :). This is a good-faith effort to understand where you're coming from. dr.ef.tymac 05:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You first; do you recognize that your insertion tried to separate conspiracy theories into two "types"? If your answer is "yes", then we're in agreement. If your answer is "no", then we're at an impasse. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a reasonable person could have interpreted it that way, (although I had not anticipated such an interpretation when I wrote it) but you are asking me to make a "yes/no" determination on what my contribution "tried" to do. A contribution does not have intent. It's text. Your turn. dr.ef.tymac 06:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This kind of sophistry makes talk: page discussions difficult; I've mentioned that above. Rephrase the question as follows: Do you recognize that your insertion separated conspiracy theories into two "types"? Jayjg ^(talk) 13:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is I don't see that there is one and only one reasonable way to interpret the insertion. Nor do I see a completely interpretation-neutral way to resolve your question. It's not like it's a mathematical proof. Most importantly, I've already acknowledged that your "types" interpretation is not unreasonable, which is why I have not requested that the text be put back in the article as-is. Is it not enough for me to recognize that your interpretation is plausible? dr.ef.tymac 17:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

So, back to the "yes/no":

• do you agree with me that generalized discussion of conspiracy theories (e.g., separation into "types") is beyond the scope of this article?
• do you agree with me that reasonable people can have differening interpretations of written statements in English?

You've mentioned "sophistry" and "meandering rhetoric" which is unfortunate, but I hope you can permit the possibility that these questions are not such, and simply an attempt to understand where you're coming from, and build on incremental and unambiguous steps toward common ground. Thanks. dr.ef.tymac 17:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Are there reliable sources which state that "some conspiracy theories depend on alternate factual conclusions from public documents, documentary evidence and official statements of the events" while "other conclusions originate from speculation and unsubstantiated inference, which is sometimes claimed as necessary since some information has not been made available to the public."?
2. Are there reliable sources which state that this is a feature specific to 9/11 conspiracy theories?
3. Does the article itself discuss this distinction? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Please note, the text you are questioning reflects a proposed addition that I already voluntarily withdrew. It would be nice if you could answer the yes/no questions, since so far, none of the links you've provided point to content I have not already read, and answering would fulfill the implicit agreement made with: You first; ... Respectfully requested in the spirit of mutual discussion. dr.ef.tymac 22:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

If you've withdrawn the inserted text, then there's no issue. Is there some other text you propose inserting? If so, what is it? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Before proposing text, it helps to do a "sanity check" to ensure we are not talking past one another. It would also do a great deal to demonstrate good faith if you could answer my still-unanswered 'yes/no' questions. They are fundamental. Choosing exact wording, providing on-point citations, establishing which citations are credible and which ones aren't, and consensus-building are not even possible if people are operating under dramatically different assumptions about the very nature and purpose of the article text itself. You've done a great deal to clarify some points, much appreciated. All that's left is the little, simple, 'yes or no' clarifications. dr.ef.tymac 23:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)