Ghostofnemo (talk | contribs) →Deletion of "new Pearl Harbor" line: new section |
Ghostofnemo (talk | contribs) →"Reichstag fire" motive deleted as POV?: mainstream media doesn't discuss this topic, but I did have a CBS News story |
||
Line 245: | Line 245: | ||
::But let's discuss the elephant in the room. You '''only add''' material to the article which bolsters the CT's POV. I never see you add material that goes '''against''' CTs. This is called [[WP:TE|tenditious editing]] and if it continues, I'll look into having you topic-banned. [[Special:Contributions/67.107.55.130|67.107.55.130]] ([[User talk:67.107.55.130|talk]]) 20:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC) |
::But let's discuss the elephant in the room. You '''only add''' material to the article which bolsters the CT's POV. I never see you add material that goes '''against''' CTs. This is called [[WP:TE|tenditious editing]] and if it continues, I'll look into having you topic-banned. [[Special:Contributions/67.107.55.130|67.107.55.130]] ([[User talk:67.107.55.130|talk]]) 20:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC) |
||
:::Since the title of this article is "9/11 conspiracy theories" I think factually representing those theories is appropriate, and that deleting those explanations, and the supporting reliable sources, borders on censorship and vandalism. [[User:Ghostofnemo|Ghostofnemo]] ([[User talk:Ghostofnemo|talk]]) 10:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC) |
:::Since the title of this article is "9/11 conspiracy theories" I think factually representing those theories is appropriate, and that deleting those explanations, and the supporting reliable sources, borders on censorship and vandalism. [[User:Ghostofnemo|Ghostofnemo]] ([[User talk:Ghostofnemo|talk]]) 10:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC) |
||
:::We rarely see this topic discussed AT ALL in the mainstream press, but I did in fact include a CBS News story involving a U.S. Congressman who discussed this exact topic. But it was still completely deleted (instead of being moved)! 11:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== Deletion of "new Pearl Harbor" line == |
== Deletion of "new Pearl Harbor" line == |
Revision as of 11:14, 2 January 2012
9/11 conspiracy theories was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Template:September 11 arbcom Template:Pbneutral
Toolbox |
---|
Article neutrality and accuracy - the introduction
As the title is 911 conspiracy theories, the basic requirement must surely be to document ALL of them without bias or impartiality. The accepted definition of what constitutes a conspiracy theory is clear. The consensus official theory that Al-Qaeda cells alone conspired to perpetrate the attack therefore represents a conspiracy theory. Is this really open to debate? I argue it is a statement of unequivocal fact and I have provided a citation for this position. Any disagreement over that I would regard as more a matter of semantics not of WP:Undue?
- Agree with you here. The official story itself is a conspiracy theory. The defenders of the official story just label the doubter "conspiracy theorists" as a convenient rhetoric ploy. --41.15.65.42 (talk) 08:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Basically, we can hardly have an article with the current title 911 conspiracy theories' without making the distinction clear between the official and minority theories of who conspired to implement the 911 attack.
I have now attempted to clarify all that in the intro (adding the officially accepted conspiracy theory). I've added that clarification by using a reliable secondary source, from the University of Lind, Sweden (e.g."...The second thread is the U.S. government’s explanation of the conspiracy, as the work of 19 Arab suicide bombers armed with box-cutting knives.") I therefore think my addition is in accordance with wiki policy. Can anyone explain to me otherwise. I am up for discussion on that.
My intent is to improve the article and introduction by making it more accurate and neutral. WP:NPOV"Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies, is non-negotiable and all editors and articles must follow it. So I think we have to either change the title or add something along the lines that I have which has been undone.
Finally, the statements come NOT from a 'minority view' source, but one representing the consensus viewpoint. Check out the source if you doubt this. Even if we argue that the source quotes the minority view, it still quotes a significant one and quotes a prominent exponent of it (David Ray Griffin). And anyway, this wiki article itself is specifically about a minority view. Regarding wiki policy on this: "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. I have specifically attempted to follow this policy "the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it". So to use WP:Undue as a reason for deleting my contribution strikes me as rather ironic;-) --Mystichumwipe (talk) 11:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- The first sentence alone stylistically awkward and borders on polemic. Hardly an improvement. I am certain the debate of conspiracy theory semantics has been raised before, so a look into the archive and the points raised in the past seems warranted, so you may want to tackle those before these changes. For now, I suggest a revert. SK (talk) 13:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- Mystichumwipe: You misunderstand WP:NPOV. NPOV requires that we report what reliable sources say about a topic without letting our own biases impact the coverage. Since the reliable sources refer to this article's topic as a conspiracy theory, so should we. To do anything other than that is a violation of NPOV. Or to put it another way, we are not supposed to introduce bias to counter the bias of reliable soruces. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- To Sören: I am fine with you wanting to improve my syntax but do you not agree that in the intro we need to make the distinction clear between 1. the official consensus theory and 2. the minority theories of who conspired to implement the 911 attack?
- To AQFK: I think I do understand NPOV. I am NOT suggesting introducing bias. The consensus view is that a conspiracy by Al Qaida operatives was behind the 9/11 attacks. Despite this well attested fact, NOWHERE in the article is that alluded to. That is the glaring omission I would like to remedy. So can I ask you to please address what I have written. We can hardly have an article with the current title 911 conspiracy theories without mentioning the official theory of who conspired to implement the 911 attack. I have provided a reliable source that details the consensus understanding of who was behind the 9/11 attacks as a Conspiracy theory. I still maintain that the article must include this somehow or NPOV is compromised and this article becomes a propaganda piece which attempts to show that the only conspiracy theories are those held by fringe nutters.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 07:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- Given the specific standard that are applied to the articles on topics related to the September 11 attacks, any argument about this and similar issues will most likely not be productive. I'd recommend to focus on other issue with regard to these articles. Cs32en Talk to me 17:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I made edits which were reverted by Arthur Rubin
The edits were for the Introduction: "(The official account also describes a conspiracy, one by Al-Qaida)," and "But see rebuttal, Popular Mechanics' Assault on 9/11 Truth at 911research.wtc7.net." In Non-cosnspiracy, the section title was changed to Atypical Alternative Explanations, and "greater" was placed in front of "conspiracy." Very innocuous and uncontraversial edits reverted without reason by an administrator yet. The article should be called Inside job and complicity theories regarding 9/11, 9/11 inside job and complicity theories, or 9/11 alternative theories.
This Wikipedia article implies there was no conspiracy in 9/11 and that there are no conspiracies period, which is the view of the anti-truth movement, or that the official version is right, which is a violation of neutrality in either case.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpell (talk • contribs)
- I reverted your recent edits as unsuitable for an encyclopedic article. Yours, SK (talk) 14:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that "Non-Conspiracy" inaccurately reflects the 2 conspiracy theories presented in the section. I will make edits that hopefully will be more accurate. "Atypical" seems like original research or editor judgment. And I agree that somewhere there must be a reliable source that notes that the 9/11 truth movement points out the the "official explanation" is a conspiracy theory. If not in plethora of 9/11 10th anniversary coverage there might be.Edkollin (talk) 22:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
The official, widely accepted "government explanation" of the 9/11 attacks is not a conspiracy theory, by definition. "A conspiracy theory is a fringe theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by exceptionally powerful and cunning conspirators to achieve a malevolent end." (emphasis added) Nandesuka (talk) 00:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- The Wikipedia definition of "conspiracy theory" as "fringe" seems to be fringe in itself as is not backed up by the sources used nor in any of the reliable dictionary sources online. Edkollin (talk) 20:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- We define it as fringe b/c it, by definition, diverts from the accepted explanation of events. In the case of 9/11 nuts, it is also preferable to refer to them as "fringe" rather than another common title "loons." Soxwon (talk) 17:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- We don't define anything, reliable sources do that. The conspiracy article does not label them fringe like it used to, they say the theories were formally fringe but have become more mainstream although some people on the internet call them fringe. And true or not these assertions are reliable sourced. Of course you are free to find reliable sourcing that assert conspiracy theories are by nature fringe. Edkollin (talk) 21:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- We define it as fringe b/c it, by definition, diverts from the accepted explanation of events. In the case of 9/11 nuts, it is also preferable to refer to them as "fringe" rather than another common title "loons." Soxwon (talk) 17:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
"The Wikipedia definition of "conspiracy theory" as "fringe" seems to be fringe in itself..." The Wikipedia article on conspiracy theory does not indicate such theories to be fringe, in and of themselves. Even if it did, and did so without sources, the word "fringe" does not mean "not backed up by the sources", so that argument is moot. The opening passage of that article sources the definition provided there to Dictionary.com, the Mcmillian Dictionary, an article by University of Tromsø psychologist Floyd Rudmin, a book by professor emeritus of political science at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs Michael Barkun, and an article by BBC reporter Peter Knight, which are hardly "fringe" sources.
The last paragraph of that article's Lead section does indicate that conspiracy theories that were once limited to fringe audiences have become commonplace in today's mass media, and that passage is sourced to the aforementioned Barkun book, a book by Professor of History Gregory S. Camp, a book by University of Utah Professor Robert Alan Goldberg, and a book by lawyer and PhD Mark Fenster. Again, hardly "fringe" sources.
- The Wikipedia article on CT defined it conspiracy theories as fringe theories very recently. Revision as of 13:20, 3 August 2011 "A conspiracy theory is a fringe theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by exceptionally powerful and cunning conspirators to achieve a malevolent end" When I wrote that sentence about Wikipedia definition of CT as being "fringe" that is what that was the first line I saw. Edkollin (talk) 21:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
"We don't define anything, reliable sources do that." Um, no, you're confusing WP:IRS with WP:FRINGE. WP:IRS determines criteria for sources that can used to support material included in articles. WP:FRINGE, on the other hand, is indeed the guideline by which Wikipedia defines fringe theories for its purposes, and the criteria given is that fringe theories are those that do not follow the scientific method, which has nothing to do with WP:IRS.
The assassination of Abraham Lincoln, for example is known to have been a conspiracy, because it's a question of documented historical fact that survives the historical, or empirical method. The mainstream explanation for 9/11 is a also conspiracy, because 9/11 was committed by 19 hijackers working in concert under the guidance of al Quaeda in general, and Osama bin Laden in particular. That's a conspiracy, and a documented one.
By contrast, conspiracies surrounding the Kennedy assassination, the so-called Moon Landing Hoax, and culpability for 9/11 other than al Quaeda are indeed fringe theories, because they do not abide by the scientific method. Nightscream (talk) 01:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- Nightscream wrote: the criteria given is that fringe theories are those that do not follow the scientific method. WP:FRINGE says nothing about scientific method. The first sentence in the body of WP:FRINGE does a better job of describing how Wikipedia distinguishes fringe from non-fringe: We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field. I agree that scientific method would be a good criteria to separate fringe from non-fringe, but in practice, that is not how it's done here. Wikipedia relies much more heavily on authority than science. To a considerable extent, Wikipedia treats authority as though it were science (it's not). Wildbear (talk) 03:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Fringe theories is a content guideline meant to help editors not give undue weight to fringe theories and help editors write articles about fringe theories. I utterly fail to see how this is suggesting editors on their own to define conspiracy theories as fringe in the conspiracy theories article. Reliable sources still need to be produced as they need to be everywhere. As it says in the guideline "Reliable sources are needed for any article in Wikipedia". This is pretty straightforward. The guideline does state "Other examples include conspiracy theories and esoteric claims about medicine". Based on what is stated (as I write this) based on reliable sources in the Conspiracy Theory article the guideline is presenting a view that for the most part is dated. Edkollin (talk) 22:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- "WP:FRINGE says nothing about scientific method." Letter-of-the-law hair-splitting. The guideline makes it clear that fringe theories include the following:
- 1. Obvious pseudoscience
- 2. Generally considered pseudoscience
- 3. Questionable science
- "WP:FRINGE says nothing about scientific method." Letter-of-the-law hair-splitting. The guideline makes it clear that fringe theories include the following:
- Pseudoscience, pseudohistory, etc., are those ideas that do not follow the scientific method. This is not mitigated because the phrase "scientific method" doesn't appear on the policy page. But if you insist on that line of reasoning, then it could easily be used against your argument, as in the following: WP:FRINGE says nothing about relying much more heavily on authority than science or about treating authority as though it were science.
- "I utterly fail to see how this is suggesting editors on their own to define conspiracy theories as fringe in the conspiracy theories article." Again, the conspiracy theory article does not do this, as not all conspiracy theories are fringe theories. Did you not read my message above? Where in that article do you see it doing this? Nightscream (talk) 22:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- Take a hypothetical example. It is the early 1600s and we are writing an article on Cosmology for the encyclopedia, using the policies and guidelines that we are working under now. We know that the majority of philosophers and astronomers subscribe to the geocentric view that the Earth is at the center of the universe; and that this view is vigorously maintained by the local authority on such topics, the Catholic Church. We also know that there is a character named Galileo who is bucking this consensus by claiming that the Earth is not at the center of the universe, based on observations through a telescope and associated calculations. Which position is in better conformance with scientific method? To which do we give the prominent view in the article? Would we characterize one of these views as "fringe" or "pseudoscience", given the general consensus of the day? If we did characterize one of these views as fringe or pseudoscience, would we be taking scientific method into account in doing so? Wildbear (talk) 02:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Earlier in this discussion
I am reposting material from earlier in the discussion so you see 1. What editor I am having this discussion with 2. Where I got the idea that the article said CT are fringe theories Edkollin (talk) 20:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- We define it as fringe b/c it, by definition, diverts from the accepted explanation of events. In the case of 9/11 nuts, it is also preferable to refer to them as "fringe" rather than another common title "loons." Soxwon (talk) 17:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- We don't define anything, reliable sources do that. The conspiracy article does not label them fringe like it used to, they say the theories were formally fringe but have become more mainstream although some people on the internet call them fringe. And true or not these assertions are reliable sourced. Of course you are free to find reliable sourcing that assert conspiracy theories are by nature fringe. Edkollin (talk) 21:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- The Wikipedia article on CT defined it conspiracy theories as fringe theories very recently. Revision as of 13:20, 3 August 2011 "A conspiracy theory is a fringe theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by exceptionally powerful and cunning conspirators to achieve a malevolent end" When I wrote that sentence about Wikipedia definition of CT as being "fringe" that is what that was the first line I saw. Edkollin (talk) 21:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- We don't define anything, reliable sources do that. The conspiracy article does not label them fringe like it used to, they say the theories were formally fringe but have become more mainstream although some people on the internet call them fringe. And true or not these assertions are reliable sourced. Of course you are free to find reliable sourcing that assert conspiracy theories are by nature fringe. Edkollin (talk) 21:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
My bad for confusing you with somebody else. I should try to not jump in discussions that have gotten to long. Since I am confused are you advocating stating that a theory is fringe if it was deducted from psuedoscience even sans reliable source that specifically states said theory is fringe? Edkollin (talk) 20:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- Wildbear: "If we did characterize one of these views as fringe or pseudoscience, would we be taking scientific method into account in doing so?" Your hypothesis is too tenuous to be anything other than moot, because Galileo himself was one of the first people to formulate the modern scientific method, and therefore, his contemporaries did not have the concept of that method, or the concept of "fringe". All they had was what was "heresy". The only thing that matters is what is considered fringe today, and by that measure, terracentricity is a pseudoscientific, and therefore, fringe idea. Galileo's are not. Nightscream (talk) 21:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- Fast forward to 2009. An international team of scientists and researchers have been using their instruments to examine samples of WTC dust in microscopic detail. They issue a report in which they claim to have found material consistent with nanothermite in the dust; a material which, if it is what they suspect it to be, should not be there. NIST, the government organization responsible for investigation of the WTC destruction, responds to this by stating that there was no "clear chain of custody" to assure that the dust had not been subject to tampering.(ref) This was countered with an assertion that NIST could examine samples kept under government custody, but the suggestion was ignored. While refusing to examine this particular physical evidence, NIST attributed reliability to its own synthetic computer models, which (in the case of building 7) do not address the straight-down collapse with a free-fall component evidenced in the visual record. I ask again: Which position is in better conformance with scientific method? To which do we give the prominent view in article about WTC destruction? Do we characterize one of these views as "fringe" or "pseudoscience"? If we characterize one of these views as fringe or pseudoscience, are taking scientific method into account in doing so? Wildbear (talk) 03:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- We're not supposed to "characterize" views at all. We're simply supposed to describe them, based on the information available to us in the reliable sources. Pursuant to the situation you describe, we can simply attribute the views or positions in question to the individuals or groups that hold them. Nightscream (talk) 15:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- Good, we can agree upon what you have just stated. My original objection was to your assertion that "the criteria given is that fringe theories are those that do not follow the scientific method", which if acted upon, would imply that you most likely are making a characterization independent of reliable sources (since the sources are usually not going to delve into conformance to scientific method). If you agree that we should not be making such a characterization independent of sourcing, then I have no further objection. Wildbear (talk) 03:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
conspiracy theory definition
"A conspiracy theory is the idea that someone, or a group of someones, acts secretly, with the goal of achieving power, wealth, influence, or other benefit. It can be as small as two petty thugs conspiring to stickup a liquor store, or as big as a group of revolutionaries conspiring to take over their country's government."(Hodapp, Christopher; Alice Von Kannon (2008) Conspiracy Theories & Secret Societies For Dummies Wiley; pg 9)
"a conspiracy theory that has been proven (for example, that President Nixon and his aides plotted to disrupt the course of justice in the Watergate case) is usually called something else—investigative journalism, or just well-researched historical analysis." (Knight, Peter (2003) Conspiracy theories in American history: an encyclopedia, Volume 1; ABC-CLIO; ISBN 978-1-57607-812-9 pg 17)
"As a publicly known and “proven” conspiracy, Watergate has a unique status, in that it serves to validate other conspiracy theories. From the time these interconnected conspiracies became known, Watergate was the measure against which other conspiracy theories could be judged." (Knight, Peter (2003) Conspiracy theories in American history: an encyclopedia, Volume 1; ABC-CLIO; ISBN 978-1-57607-812-9 pg 730)
"Conspiracy theory is thus a bridge term--it links subjugating conceptual strategies (paranoid style, political paranoia, conspiracism) to narratives that investigate conspiracies (conspiratology, conspiracy research, conspiracy account). Conspiracy theory is a condensation of all of the above, a metaconcept signifying the struggles of the meaning of the category. We need to recognized that we are on the bridge when we use the term." (Bratich, Jack Z. (2010) Conspiracy panics: political rationality and popular culture SUNY pg 6)
"But if a conspiracy theory is simply a theory that posits a conspiracy – a secret plan on the part of some group to influence events by partly secret means – and if a conspiracy theorist is someone who subscribes to a conspiracy theory, then the conventional wisdom itself is not just suspect, but obviously absurd."(Pigden, Charles R (2007) "Conspiracy Theories and the Conventional Wisdom" Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology Volume 4, Issue 2, Edinburgh University Press pp. 222 DOI: 10.1353/epi.2007.0017.)
"What is a conspiracy theory? The discussion so far suggests that a conspiracy theory is simply a conspiratorial explanation, and that an explanation is conspiratorial if it postulates a group of agents working together in secret, often, though perhaps not always, for a sinister purpose." (Coady, David Conspiracy theories: the philosophical debate Ashgate Publishing Page 2) later on page 140 Coady reiterates that at its most basic level a conspiracy theory is the theory of a conspiracy.
Keeley, Brian L. Of Conspiracy Theories Journal of Philosophy (March, 1999) pg 109-126 reprinted as chapter 4 of David Coady's Conspiracy theories: the philosophical debate tries to makes a distinction between warranted conspiracy theories "(say, those explaining Watergate)" and unwarranted conspiracy theories (UCT) "(say, theories about extraterrestrials abducting humans)".
A conspiracy theory in of itself is not fringe and Peter Knight's Conspiracy theories in American history presented the following warranted conspiracy theories: Sicilian Mafia (pg 451), Project MKULTRA (pg 490), Operation Mockingbird (pg 486), Watergate (pg 725), Tuskegee syphilis experiment (pg 38, 45, 538), Operation Northwoods (pg 117), Iran-Contra Affair (pg 349), CIA drug trafficking (pg 237), Business Plot (pg 625), and Operation Gladio (pg 231).
Similarly, the conspiracy theory that the Nazis were the ones who set the Reichstag fire is very popular even among serious scholars (Davidson, Eugene (2004) The Unmaking of Adolf Hitler University of Missouri Press pg 457)
If this is truly an article on "9/11 conspiracy theories" then per the above both warranted and unwarranted conspiracy theories need to be dealt with.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
- In Wikipedia the theories have to not just warranted or unwarranted but notable the theory has to come from a lot more then one guy and his website. I don't know how warranted and unwarranted would help with the recent issue of should we only deal with conspiracies theories dealing with the 9/11 attacks or should we also deal with allegations of coverup to hide incompetence. Be that as it may what theories do you believe have not been dealt with that should be? Edkollin (talk) 22:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Lying to the 9/11 Commission
I've removed this[1] from the article for the following two reasons:
- First, it's a WP:BLP violation. We shouldn't be using the term 'lying' in Wikipedia's voice. Yes, I know that the person who wrote the Toronto Globe and Mail article used those words. But we shouldn't do that here. Yes, it can probably be rephrased and possibly fixed, but there's a second issue which makes the BLP concerns moot.
- I haven't read the book but after reading the cited source, Farmer's thesis doesn't seem to have anything to do with conspiracy theories at all. Yes, there's an offhand reference to conspiracy theories towards the end of the cited source. But if you look at that carefully, the Toronto Globe and Mail article is disagreeing with Farmer saying that he goes too far, and compares his Farmer's methodology with the conspiracy theorist's methodology. Big difference. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- I put it back. I don't see how it's a BLP violation or how it's in Wikipedias voice when it specifically attributes what is said to the source. I do agree though, that the cited source should be Farmers book and not an article about it. I think this is notable and, ironically, could be the one section of this article that isn't completely nutjob. (No offense intended to the nutjobs...:) Mystylplx (talk) 03:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- Can we please follow WP:BRD? It was boldly added it and I reverted it. We should discuss it on the talk page before adding back to the article.
- It's a WP:BLP violation because we are accusing a living person of lying. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material. Please do not do this again.
- Second, neither Farmer's book nor the cited news article seem to have anything to do with 9/11 conspiracy theories. We seemed to have found a source about Farmer's book which compared Farmer's methodology to that the methodology of a conspiracy theorist (which one they do not say) and seem to have concluded that it has something to with 9/11 conspiracy theories. The news article also compare's Farmer's methodology to Columbo. But that doesn't mean Farmer's book is about Columbo. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- See What bold, reverse, diuscuss, is NOT.. Also this. And third, Farmers book ( at least the parts quoted) most certainly are about 911 conspiracy theories. It's not the standard fare for 911 conspiracy theories, crazy nuts with whacko theories, but it's a conspiracy theory in that he more than strongly suggests that Bush lied. And the source is not some nobody but was senior council to the 911 Commission--that's notable! AND a WP:RS if there ever was one. This is a no-brainer. This article is about 911 Conspiracy Theories and this may be the one and only one that has some real credibility to it. The BLP argument is nonsensical--read WP:BLP. It's sourced to a reliable (very reliable) source and is characterized as his words, not Wikipedias. And it CLEARLY deserves space in an article about 911 conspiracy theories. It's not even a close call. Mystylplx (talk) 05:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- Essentially this was added by one editor. Reverted by you. Then re-reverted by me. This isn't even really covered by WP:BRD. But the BLP claim is nonsensical. BLP doesn't say we can't publish any information that might be controversial period--it says we don't publish it unless there's a reliable source. And again--Senior Council to the 911 Commission John Farmer, Jr.. Mystylplx (talk) 06:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- OK. By no stretch of the imagination is this a BLP violation. That's completely imaginary and irrational. It's not even a close call. See wp:blp for more info. ::::::According to that policy it must adhere to :
- Neutral point of view (NPOV)
- Verifiability (V)
- No original research (NOR)
- OK. By no stretch of the imagination is this a BLP violation. That's completely imaginary and irrational. It's not even a close call. See wp:blp for more info. ::::::According to that policy it must adhere to :
- This certainly fits that criteria. So I'm wondering what's going on here. There's no way, shape, or form, in which this violates BLP. That's pure fiction. Yet it's been reverted twice as a BLP violation.... What's the real story? I'm certainly no 911 truther or POV pusher, so clue me in? What's the deal? Mystylplx (talk) 06:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- On the contrary, it is a clear WP:BLP violation. It accuses a living person of lying. Unless there is actually a relevant court ruling to that effect, (see Bill Clinton), it's controversial. That, therefore, requires a reliable source. Farmer, himself, and his source, are not reliable for that purpose; it has to be from a reliable publisher. I see no evidence of that, here, although it might be the case. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- This certainly fits that criteria. So I'm wondering what's going on here. There's no way, shape, or form, in which this violates BLP. That's pure fiction. Yet it's been reverted twice as a BLP violation.... What's the real story? I'm certainly no 911 truther or POV pusher, so clue me in? What's the deal? Mystylplx (talk) 06:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm going to bed soon, but I wanted to try to answer at least one of your questions before I do. Now that I know what angle this is coming from, there are two forms of CT:
- LIHOP ("Let it happen on purpose") – That key individuals within the government had foreknowledge and let them happen anymay
- MIHOP ("Make/Made it happen on purpose") - That key individuals within the government planned the attacks and collaborated with, or framed, al-Qaeda in carrying them out.
- We seem to inventing a third category of CT that the government tried to cover up its incompetence after the fact. This is not a conspiracy theory. Legitimate criticism of the US governemt regarding 9/11 doesn't belong in this article. It should go in some other article. In my absense, it appears that somehow the article shifted focus to include any criticism - whether conspiracy theory or not. I see that there's now a section for "Non LIHOP/MIHOP". I doubt if such a thing even exists. It should probably be deleted. Going to bed now. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 08:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- @Arthur Rubin With all due respect I think you're just making stuff up. I've read and re-read wp:blp and I see nothing in there about requiring a court order. Farmer is certainly a reliable source.
- @A Quest For Knowledge, I see what you're saying and you might have a point, but I do think a conspiracy to cover up incompetence is still a 911 conspiracy--it's just not the standard whacko conspiracy theory that one normally thinks of when using the phrase "911 conspiracy theory." Mystylplx (talk) 16:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- Mystylplx: There's a world of difference between wacko conspiracy theories and real conspiracies. Watergate was a real conspiracy. Aliens landing at Roswell is not. We shouldn't lump the two together. I'm not saying that Farmer can't be included somewhere in Wikipedia, but this isn't the right article. This article is only about the crazy stuff. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm going to bed soon, but I wanted to try to answer at least one of your questions before I do. Now that I know what angle this is coming from, there are two forms of CT:
- That's where I disagree, or at least I don't think it's necessary that this article be "only about the crazy stuff." This is similar to your LIHOP-- just without claiming that it was "on purpose." The section could even be expanded a bit with this from CBS news and plenty of other sources that go into what the Bush administration knew and what was (and was not) done about it. It seems to me this article is the appropriate place for stuff like that as I doubt it's feasible to start a new article titled Non-whacko 9/11 conspiracy theories. Mystylplx (talk) 18:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
It seems like the place to mention it would be Criticism of the 9/11 Commission. Tom Harrison Talk 18:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- It isn't criticism of the 911 commission... Mystylplx (talk) 18:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- But I do see September 11 attacks advance-knowledge debate where it would be appropriate. Mystylplx (talk) 18:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's not clear to me based on the news article who exactly is making the accusation of lying. The author of the book is John Farmer. The author of The Globe and Mail news story is Peter Hart. We can obviously tell that Hart uses that word. But just because Hart used it, doesn't necessary mean Farmer did. Does anyone have access to the book? Does Farmer actually use this word? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- "almost entirely and, inexplicably, untrue.” is in quotes. That usually means it's a direct quote. If the word "lie" is the stumbling block it could be rewritten without that word. Mystylplx (talk) 19:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- On the contrary, although Farmer is an expert, we cannot use his word to support a controversial statement about a living person. On the other hand, if The Globe and Mail is considered a WP:RS, and it quotes Farmer, we can use it to support that Farmer said it was a lie. I'm not sure that "Farmer wrote that the Bush Administration statements were false." is sufficiently distinct from gossip that it's usable, but we must make it clear that that is all we are saying. We could remove the "Farmer wrote" clause only if Riverhead Books is a reliable publisher, regardless of any individual reliability Farmer might have. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm really confused on where you're coming from on this. First of all "if The Globe and Mail is considered a WP:RS"??? It's the New York Times of Canada. Second, I don't think anyone wants to remove the "Farmer wrote" clause. The whole section is on what he wrote. Mystylplx (talk) 20:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- On the contrary, although Farmer is an expert, we cannot use his word to support a controversial statement about a living person. On the other hand, if The Globe and Mail is considered a WP:RS, and it quotes Farmer, we can use it to support that Farmer said it was a lie. I'm not sure that "Farmer wrote that the Bush Administration statements were false." is sufficiently distinct from gossip that it's usable, but we must make it clear that that is all we are saying. We could remove the "Farmer wrote" clause only if Riverhead Books is a reliable publisher, regardless of any individual reliability Farmer might have. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- "almost entirely and, inexplicably, untrue.” is in quotes. That usually means it's a direct quote. If the word "lie" is the stumbling block it could be rewritten without that word. Mystylplx (talk) 19:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's not clear to me based on the news article who exactly is making the accusation of lying. The author of the book is John Farmer. The author of The Globe and Mail news story is Peter Hart. We can obviously tell that Hart uses that word. But just because Hart used it, doesn't necessary mean Farmer did. Does anyone have access to the book? Does Farmer actually use this word? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, the word 'lie' is a huge stumbling block. We don't call people liars. A direct quote is better. But it still doesn't have anything to do with this article. If it helps, think of conspiracy theories as sort of like urban legends. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- There's already , , and this, none of which are really whacko. And Conspiracy theories needn't be urban legends--there have been lots of conspiracy theories that turned out to be true. See The Dreyfus Affair and MKULTRA as two examples. Just because the allegations in this case come from a credible source doesn't mean it's not a conspiracy theory. The idea that the Bush administration was... disingenuous? about the events leading up to 911 seems to me to fit well on this page. Mystylplx (talk) 23:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, the word 'lie' is a huge stumbling block. We don't call people liars. A direct quote is better. But it still doesn't have anything to do with this article. If it helps, think of conspiracy theories as sort of like urban legends. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
It sounds like we need a citation to a reliable source that says this is a conspiracy theory. Tom Harrison Talk 11:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- What's the difference between a cover-up and a conspiracy? If the Bush administration is trying to conceal information from the public, that's a cover-up. Conducting a cover-up is a conspiracy to mislead the public. Ghostofnemo (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
No it is not. The two words do not mean the same thing. A conspiracy requires a minimum of two or more persons. A cover-up can be conducted by one person. Even if a cover-up is conducted by multiple persons, the two words emphasize different things, even if a given act can be both. Nightscream (talk) 17:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- Unless Bush is able to conduct the cover-up by himself, it's a conspiracy. Ghostofnemo (talk) 20:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Does controversial material about a living person require a court order or just a reliable source to mention it on Wikipedia?
- (RFC resolved, simple rephrasing is all that's required.)
Information published in a book by John Farmer, who was the Senior council for the 911 Commission, Attorney General of New Jersey, and Dean of Rutgers School of Law, has been removed from the 9/11 conspiracy theories article as a violation wp:blp because it suggests the Bush administration lied to cover up incompetence. Arthur Rubin claims Farmer is not a reliable source unless there's a court ruling to back up what he said. The text in the article made it clear that these were Farmers words and was not bluntly put in the voice of Wikipedia. Mystylplx (talk) 17:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- The text in the article did not make it clear that "these were Farmers words"; if that's made clear, and we only use what the book reviews said the words were, rather than attempting to interpret the book ourselves, that that would be acceptable under WP:BLP, even if not easily distinguishable from WP:GOSSIP. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
In his 2009 book The Ground Truth: The Untold Story of America Under Attack on 9/11 John Farmer Jr., senior counsel to the 9/11 commission, previous attorney general of New Jersey, and dean of the Rutgers School of Law, wrote that the staff of the 9/11 commission concluded that the Bush Administration's description of events on the morning of 9/11 was “almost entirely and, inexplicably, untrue.” The staff believed that the cover-up involved classifying information and having politicians and military officials lie to the commission. These lies were repeated in news reports and official histories of 9/11. The book does not lay out a specific alternate theory but its extensive reconstruction of events discusses incompetence and much more extensive prior warnings than were revealed.[1][2][3]
- That is the text that was removed. Notice one of the sources is the NY Times. Another is The Globe and Mail I don't see how it's not clear those are Farmers words. The entire section is about what he wrote in his book. Mystylplx (talk) 20:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- And we don't even know Farmer even used the work 'liar', which means this could be BLP violation against Farmer, too. Does anyone have a copy of this book? Does anyone know Farmer even used this word? If so, how did he use it? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well, no. In the section, the first and last sentences say they were attributed to Farmer, but not the middle two. And the word "lie" is not in either book review, except in the title. As we all know, titles are not reliable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- And we don't even know Farmer even used the work 'liar', which means this could be BLP violation against Farmer, too. Does anyone have a copy of this book? Does anyone know Farmer even used this word? If so, how did he use it? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- As I said yesterday, the verbiage can probably be fixed, but since this has nothing to do with conspiracy theories, the point is moot. If it helps, think of conspiracy theories as sort of like urban legends. I'm not saying that Farmer can't be included somewhere in Wikipedia, but this isn't the right article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- As I pointed out above, not all conspiracy theories are urban legends. See Websters. In this case the "set of circumstances" would be the cover-up of the facts leading up to 911. Mystylplx (talk) 23:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- Urban legends are untrue by definition. While it may be the case that most conspiracy theories are untrue, that's not a part of the definition. A conspiracy theory could be true and still be a conspiracy theory. Mystylplx (talk) 23:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. Conspiracies and conspiracy theories are two different things. For example, Watergate was a conspiracy. The Roswell UFO incident is a conspiracy theory. That the Nixon adminstration conspired to cover up the break-in is a mainstream viewpoint. Roswell is fringe theory. The first is accepted in academia. The second is not. I wasn't sure if you understood the difference so what I said was to think of conspiracy theories as something similar to urban legends. If this comparison wasn't helpful, you can just ignore the comparison. The bottom line is that this is the wrong article to include Farmer. As far as I know, he's not advocating a conspiracy theory and the source you cite doesn't label it as a conspiracy theory either. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- As I said yesterday, the verbiage can probably be fixed, but since this has nothing to do with conspiracy theories, the point is moot. If it helps, think of conspiracy theories as sort of like urban legends. I'm not saying that Farmer can't be included somewhere in Wikipedia, but this isn't the right article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- ^ The truth about 9/11 Toronto Globe and Mail February 10, 2010
- ^ John Farmer (2009). THE GROUND TRUTH The Untold Story of America Under Attack on 9/11. Riverhead Books. ISBN 1594488940.
- ^ JACOB HEILBRUNN The New York Times (November 12, 2009). "The Lies They Told". Retrieved October 15, 2011.
- Have any of the staff agreed with his claims of their options? The original header was undue, as a minimum the content needed a good write to clarify exactly what it was and the comments that it is not really a conspiracy theory seems correct - it just seem more like a debunking of the conspiracy theories - asserting it was just people covering their ass so to speak. 911_Commission#Members - Farmer was also only a staff worker and not a member . Off2riorob (talk) 14:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- It is my edit, did not know a raging controversy evolved over it while I was enjoying my weekend. I am trying to figure who is the living person who is possible being falsely accused is?. Nobody is specifically named in the article. While I get what you are saying that it is not literally a "9/11 conspiracy theory" it falls under the definition of 9/11 conspiracy theories presented in the "Non LIHOP/MIHOP" subsection of the "Types of Criticism" section specifically "There have been allegations that official reports have covered up incompetence or negligence from U.S. personnel or the Bush Administration". The allegation specifically claims that the Bush Administrations "official story" is likely untrue which is a major subject of the article. (Whether it should be or Non MIHOP/LIHOP section should be there is a broader and probably separate discussion). Another objection was that I should have in every sentence stated that it was Farmer making the statements. I think that is overkill but be that as it may, if you object to the wording of something then reword so it is better, don't delete the whole thing. Another objection is that this was the wrong location. If you are deleting for that reason mention in the edit summary with possible a suggestion of a better location Edkollin (talk) 23:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'd say the idea that it is a BLP violation was the weakest (virtually preposterous) argument. I put the RfC when Arthur Rubin, an admin, reverted it as a violation of BLP and stated it would require a court finding to justify inclusion. He's since toned down the rhetoric so I think it's safe to say we can throw the BLP objection out the window. It was nonsensical to start with.
- The better argument against is that it's not a conspiracy theory and so doesn't belong on this page. If I understand him A Quest For Knowledge seems to be arguing that if it's not whacko it's not a conspiracy theory. Personally I don't buy that at all and I think you covered pretty well why it does fit on the page. I'll leave it at that. Mystylplx (talk) 04:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- It is my edit, did not know a raging controversy evolved over it while I was enjoying my weekend. I am trying to figure who is the living person who is possible being falsely accused is?. Nobody is specifically named in the article. While I get what you are saying that it is not literally a "9/11 conspiracy theory" it falls under the definition of 9/11 conspiracy theories presented in the "Non LIHOP/MIHOP" subsection of the "Types of Criticism" section specifically "There have been allegations that official reports have covered up incompetence or negligence from U.S. personnel or the Bush Administration". The allegation specifically claims that the Bush Administrations "official story" is likely untrue which is a major subject of the article. (Whether it should be or Non MIHOP/LIHOP section should be there is a broader and probably separate discussion). Another objection was that I should have in every sentence stated that it was Farmer making the statements. I think that is overkill but be that as it may, if you object to the wording of something then reword so it is better, don't delete the whole thing. Another objection is that this was the wrong location. If you are deleting for that reason mention in the edit summary with possible a suggestion of a better location Edkollin (talk) 23:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- Have any of the staff agreed with his claims of their options? The original header was undue, as a minimum the content needed a good write to clarify exactly what it was and the comments that it is not really a conspiracy theory seems correct - it just seem more like a debunking of the conspiracy theories - asserting it was just people covering their ass so to speak. 911_Commission#Members - Farmer was also only a staff worker and not a member . Off2riorob (talk) 14:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- Arthur Rubin is correct in as far as the extract reads to me as if the sentence beginning "These lies..." is also in the editorial voice. It is however not clear where the distinction between legitimate criticism of events surrounding 11 September and conspiracy theories lies, and I am fairly certain that some popular works on the subject confuse, conflate and mix the two with glorious abandon.
- Careful rewording of the text seems all that is needed to resolve this, there fore I am removing the rfc tag.Rich Farmbrough, 10:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC).
- Regarding the theory concern, the last revision I saw wasn't claiming to be a theory but a cover-up allegation. Therefore, avoiding the content because it's not a theory ain't a valid argument either, although the paragraph does need rewording if it's restored. ~ AdvertAdam on-mobile 07:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
YouTube video in Pentagon section
The video does not contain a single frame showing a plane. And what are the technical specs of the camera making the recording? How many frames per second? The passing car suggests a pretty low frequency. Why is this video included in this article? Is this video supposed to support 9/11 conspiracy theories? ♆ CUSH ♆ 00:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- Which citation is it? Nightscream (talk) 10:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- What is it that you ask? There is only one video. ♆ CUSH ♆ 19:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Susan Lindauer shoot down
Susan Lindauer is asserting a youtube video that she had been told at some point that Flight 93 was shot down and that the pilot who shot it down was / is held in Florida somewhere. I'm planning on looking into her article and am curious if anyone has come across any other statements / theories like this ... or has seen the evidence / names she promises to provide in this video.--Senor Freebie (talk) 07:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
"Reichstag fire" motive deleted as POV?
How is this POV? "Parallels have also been drawn between the 9/11 attacks and the Reichstag fire, raising the possibility that the 9/11 attacks were used as an excuse to undermine civil liberties and democracy." Refs: http://www.alternet.org/rights/78182/?page=1 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/18/politics/main3069391.shtml http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2011/12/28/a-tale-of-two-cities-weimar-and-washington/ Here is the diff of the deletion: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories&diff=468806942&oldid=468805399 Ghostofnemo (talk) 19:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- First line of WP:NPOV: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." The Reichstag fire comparison is a common theme in 9/11 conspiracy theories. Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Don't we need a source connecting this to 9/11 conspiracy theories? Tom Harrison Talk 19:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- NOTE: This is A Quest For Knowledge on a public computer. I'm not logging into a computer that might not be secure.
- The content you added has several problems:
- The Reichstag fire is rarely (if ever) mentioned in secondary reliable sources in connection to this topic. When we give prominence to minor aspects of a topic, it's against undue weight. This might belong in the body, but not the lede. (More about this below.)
- The lede should summarize the article. If you want to add new content to the article, start at the body and work your way up to the lede.
- But even still, we already have a representative example of historical precedents (Operation Northwoods). Do you want to replace Operation Northwoods with the Reichstag fire? I'd rather stick with Operation Northwoods. It seems to be cited more frequently in the literature than the Reichstag fire.
- But let's discuss the elephant in the room. You only add material to the article which bolsters the CT's POV. I never see you add material that goes against CTs. This is called tenditious editing and if it continues, I'll look into having you topic-banned. 67.107.55.130 (talk) 20:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- Since the title of this article is "9/11 conspiracy theories" I think factually representing those theories is appropriate, and that deleting those explanations, and the supporting reliable sources, borders on censorship and vandalism. Ghostofnemo (talk) 10:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- We rarely see this topic discussed AT ALL in the mainstream press, but I did in fact include a CBS News story involving a U.S. Congressman who discussed this exact topic. But it was still completely deleted (instead of being moved)! 11:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deletion of "new Pearl Harbor" line
If you think this belongs somewhere else (not with the line discussing possible motives in the opening paragraph) then why not move it where you think it belongs instead of completely deleting it from the article? Diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories&diff=469103181&oldid=469102671 Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)