Talk:Loose Change

Archives
Feb 2006 - Apr 2006 May 2006 - Jul 2006 Aug 2006 - Oct 2006

Archived

Latest three-month talk archive is up. Will be archived again in another three months.--Rosicrucian 16:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

GA notes

A few problems with this article:

1. Too many unreliable sources. See the WP:RS guideline for more information on that.
2. Prose is messy. Too many section breaks where they aren't needed.
3. Too many bullet points. If you work them into the prose, it'll look and read nicer.

It needs a lot of work, but has a lot of potential. Good luck with it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree there is no need for the use of bullet points. I would like to change the history section to remove the bullet points and was wondering if anyone else agrees. Lonnyz 16:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

"accurate comparison"

Is a citation really needed? I think it self evident a direct impact is a more accurate comparison than accidental crashes. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The differences:Fighter Jet vs passenger jet (shape, design, materials,...), Engines did the most damage vs fuselage, Different wall material (?), etc... Some high speed crashes with passenger jets into mountain walls did leave debris. I think it would helpful if a material scientist discusses this in detail why this is an accurate comparison instead of people assuming it is one. The claim in loose change that a plane can't desintegrate is clearly false, but claiming that this fighter jet crash is a good model for what happened at the pentagon is something else.81.165.161.21 15:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

What mountain wall? I think you are talking about a mountain face rather than a wall. Granted a fighter jet is smaller than a passenger plane, but overall they both are planes made of light weight strong and flexible alloys with fuel and some heavy components. Also the article did not stipulate it was an "accurate comparison" but rather a "more accurate comparison". I don't think we need a materials expert to tell us a concrete barrier is "more accurate" to the reinforced Pentagon walls, when compared to mountain terrain/face. You're absolutely right though on it not being a good model, but the article does not maintain it is. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, first of all this is WP:OR. Secondly, do you have a degree in physics? Civil engineering? etc? Can you clarify what knowledge you have to make this case? In any case, the wording in the article is much better now. 81.165.161.21 07:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

No really what are your qualifications? You made a lot of judgement calls on this article. I want to know?

I have no degree, merely a passing interest in physics and a active interest in clarifying misleading information. The knowledge I have is minimal, but certainly sufficient to know the difference between a mountain "wall" and a mountain "face"; and how a mountain face isn't close to the same thing as a concrete wall, and that a concrete barrier is a "more" accurate comparison to a concrete wall. It's not a terribly complicated "case" requiring substantial expertise. I have yet to see a valid reason to question this, as pointing out the obvious does not qualify as WP:OR. I do like the new (precedent) wording though. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 07:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Canadian, and as I've been on Wikipedia a while... encountering other languages is normal. As to breaking up, all modern aircraft share a common set of parameters; they must be lightweight so that they can fly efficiently. This means materials that are resistant to stress, but are not exactly robust to hard impacts... like aluminum and the like. So any direct impact with any hard surface (assuming enough velocity) is enough to rip a plane apart like a tin can. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

"documentary"

Is there some sort of taboo against the word "documentary" beings used in refernce to this film? The entire article gives no mention to the word expect, form what I can see, in a picutre caption! --Spencer "The Belldog" Bermudez | (Complain here) 10:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Documentaries are generally expected to be factually accurate. I would liken LC more to a propaganda video. Qarnos 19:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Then the page for White Wilderness should also be changed to reflect this? 84.195.126.73 21:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be trend of calling Loose Change a commentary, instead of a documentary. In many respects Loose Change fails to adhere to the basic principles of a documentary, perhaps the most prominent being setting out to prove a point regardless of evidence. (Wow, if those sentences weren't chock full of weasel words, I don't know what is..! I couldn't be bothered to write it better, but still, this is a Talk page, innit?) --Tirolion 09:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok I changed White Wilderness to commentary. 81.165.161.151 17:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

From documentary "In the 1930s, Grierson further argued in his essay First Principles of Documentary that Moana had "documentary value". Grierson's principles of documentary were that cinema's potential for observing life could be exploited in a new art form; that the "original" actor and "original" scene are better guides than their fiction counterparts to interpreting the modern world; and that materials "thus taken from the raw" can be more real than the acted article. In this regard, Grierson's views align with Vertov's contempt for dramatic fiction as "bourgeois excess," though with considerably more subtlety. Grierson's definition of documentary as "creative treatment of actuality" has gained some acceptance, though it presents philosophical questions about documentaries containing stagings and reenactments."

As someone with a degree in non-fiction, or if you prefer "documentary" film, both Loose Change and Wild Wilderness qualify as documentaries. They are creative interpertations of reality. In film history, documentaries are not held to the same standards as journalism. In fact, almost all important documentary films contain obvious fabrications of reality. See Nanook of the North the first film you will watch in almost every non-fiction film class. Unless you plan to go through every single self-identified and historically classified documentary film that contain incorrect or fictional elements, and make the bad faith edit you did on Wild Wilderness, this is Wiki vandalism, pure and simple. I'm not touching Loose Change, but Wild Wilderness is clearly a documentary film.66.77.144.5 19:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

To answer this question, a "theory" is not the same as a "fact", and documentaries focus around facts and concrete objects or ideas. I mean I guess if you call Michael Tubby Moore's film a 'documentary'... Zchris87v 03:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

Given that the article seems to have stabilized out and the talkpage calmed down, I'm going to relax my three month talkpage archiving schedule. We're at four months and counting, and I'll begin archiving again once I get a better feel for the pace the talkpage is moving at now.--Rosicrucian 21:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you read To Kill A Mockingbird? 67.162.76.82 22:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Release date of film

The release date is now listed as March 2007. Thanks for deleting the reference to Feb 2007 - clearly, this didn't happen - but I'm not sure listing a March date is appropriate either (if a March release were due, surely they'd have already had the film scheduled in cinemas etc?) Maybe we could just say "A further "final cut" version was originally planned for release on September 11 2006, but is now delayed" Jon m

The release date is now "late summer 2007."--Joseph.nobles 03:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for updating the info. Jon m 11:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Who Merged the Production Team Bios?

Avery and friends used to have separate Bios on wikipedia, which seem to have been merged into this article. Their infamy or fame warrants separate bios. At the very least, we should see their dates of birth. It is significant that these men were below drinking age when this film was made. Maxanova 06:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

How is 'drinking age' relevant in this case? The events of 9/11, and the Truth Movement, have no connections to the consumption of alcohol. If they were below the age of majority of 18, I see a point, but seperate from the consumption of alcohol, once someone is over 18 they are deemed to be an adult.Rgroen 14:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

There were originally four articles dedicated to Loose Change. One for the film, one for the production company, and one for each of the filmmakers. However, Loose Change is their only claim to fame, and thus there is no reason for these to be separate articles.--Rosicrucian 21:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Article title

Shouldn't this article be at Loose Change (documentary) or Loose Change (2007 film) or something along those lines? The "video" qualification seems a little incongruous, and it doesn't sufficiently distinguish this article from the other two movies (and one television miniseries) called Loose Change. 217.155.20.163 21:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Stronger objection to the current name: it doesn't even fit. It has never been released on VHS or DVD as far as I know. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 01:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Putting in a request for a name change now. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 02:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

2007 film works for me. Anything with Internet in it won't work, and documentary is a tough sell. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Also they do have a DVD, and have offered it for free to 9/11 relatives. Perhaps that should be in the article. Renaming now to 2007 film. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

But it wasn't released in 2007 (and probably wont be, either)! Qarnos 07:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, however (I think) there is an implied consensus we will put the year of the last version the Loose Change producers deem to be definitive. Hopefully 2007 will be the year, if not then we may have to change the year to reflect the release of the latest version. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 16:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It was not shot nor released on "film", such a label does not apply.

GA comment

These are just some suggestions of things that should be fixed before another reviewer looks it over. The first image needs a fair use rationale and a film infobox should also be added. The second and third images look like they are about to be deleted, and probably should be removed from the article anyway, as it is likely they will not qualify for fair use. There are a few sections that rely on the bullet lists, and some of these should be converted to prose. Please consider fixing these things before the article is reviewed, as at least the lack of a fair use rationale is grounds for failing the article. Let me know on my talk page if you have any questions. --Nehrams2020 06:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Because the original version was released in 2005, should I change the name of the article to 2005? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 19:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

An interesting article. I'm not 'officially' reviewing this: just some observations.

• Airings' and 'In other media' should be converted to prose.
• I'd like to see the references developed to include access date: using the cite templates would help, but if you don't opt for them try to include the information they might present: Author, Title, Work, Date, Date accessed.
• Per badlydrawnjeff's review from a previous GA nom, the article contains some dodgy sources.
• Images need fair use rationale.

Good luck, and well done so far. The JPS^{talk to me} 23:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Three suggestions I have for this:

• More sources, and possibly further expansion, for the "history" section.
• Creation of a proper "reaction" section incorporating the current "Criticism" section.
• Complete the sourcing of, and/or possibly liquidate (it's a bit triviaish), the "In other media" section.

Please consider. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 00:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to echo Nehrams request that the lead image needs a Fair Use rationale, the article could be failed because of this alone, (It is currently at the front of the line for oldest articles on the GAC page) and I think that'd be a shame when its such an easy problem to fix. Homestarmy 23:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and to clarify, just saying where it came from isn't the same as spelling out an individual fair use rationale. Homestarmy 23:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

At this point, the article could be failed as a lot of the above concerns remain unaddressed. I'd encourage its editors to begin working on them ASAP. The JPS^{talk to me} 10:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I know I might sound like a broken drum right now, but it looks like the second image also doesn't have a real Fair Use rationale written for it, it just says what the image is and where it came from, not why its usage qualifies as fair use. Homestarmy 20:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

GA Failed

This article has too far to go to make it to GA, and as others have looked at it and made comments without much improvement there is no need for a hold.

• Reasons for fail:
  • As now marked, there are entire sections lacking references, including the largest section. Simply watching the movie and then descriping what one saw is original research. A reliable third party source must be used.
  • External links: Part of the WP:MOS covers external links, both inline and in a seperate section. Please read and note that external links are to be kept to a minimu and see if the External links section meets that criteria.

Aditionally, the previously mentioned items by other editors need to be addressed. Also, in the lead there is a reference to the film coming out on pay-per-view. Is this needed, should we also say where the DVDs are available to but? It looks more like advertising than content needed in a encyclopedia. Overall, this article does cite quite a few items, but it needs many more. Aboutmovies 20:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

co.nr link needs replacement when article is unprotected

The domain co.nr is a URL shortener/redirect. When such a link is clicked, the user is taken to some other page besides the URL he/she clicked. The link, www.lolloosechange.co.nr (labeled "Subtitled critical version of Loose Change"), in the "Criticism" sub-section of the External links section is just such a link -- it deposits the reader at http://www.911mysteriesguide.com/MarkyX/index.html.

URL redirect sites have been used in some cases by persistent spammers to bypass the spam blacklist filters in our MediaWiki software, so our standard practice is to blacklist redirect domains. Prior to blacklisting, we try to replace all legitimate instances of such a link with the actual web page. After blacklisting, a page with a blacklisted link cannot be edited until the blacklisted link is deleted or "disabled" (by removing the "http://" or by putting a space between it and the rest of the link).

The co.nr domain is slated for blacklisting this week; see: meta:Talk:Spam blacklist#700 URL redirection links to clean up. I tried to swap out the link above but found the article protected today; when it's unprotected, someone will want to make the change. The lolloosechange.co.nr link is not one of the spam links we've seen abused; like many co.nr links, the co.nr domain was used here as a link shortener. (I've got 500+ more pages to fix, so I will not be monitoring this article for follow-up. --A. B. ^(talk) 18:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Link Fix

In the third paragraph of the Content section, The link about the E-3 points to the E-3 disambibuation page. It should point to the page for the E-3 Sentry (a plane).

(The correct URL is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-3_Sentry)

FuzzyCuteness 22:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Do it, then! It would have been quicker to correct it than to type that message! The JPS^{talk to me} 22:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticism sources

Good article, but I have a couple of problems with the criticism section - WP:RS in particular. Sites like Screw Loose Change and wtc7.info needs to pass WP:WEB before we can mention them in an encyclopedia. I would also like to see the alligations of Popular Mechanics being sold to the US government in this article - something folks Alex Jones has charged. — Selmo ^(talk) 17:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's the link for the Popular Mechanics thing. [1] — Selmo ^(talk) 17:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The header of Screw Loose Change would appear to easily meet WP:WEB.

As Seen in Vanity Fair's August 2006 Issue!

As Seen in US News & World Report's September 11 Fifth Anniversary Issue!

As Seen in Time Magazine's September 11, 2006 Issue!

As to the prisonplanet link, unsure what you are attempting to demonstrate.

I can tell you any article making a comparison of the WTC to the Windsor building is misinformed, and it is a clear case of "shoddy research". The steel sections of of the Windsor building collapsed early in the fire, [2] this can even be plainly seen in the prisonplanet six section photo. Concrete performs far better in fire than does steel; this is why fireproofing is added to steel in the first place. Also to state the obvious, since the WTC was massive, its stronger core, is also under far more stress (from the floors above) than the Madrid building, which had merely 29 floors above ground! Simply a very bad comparison no matter how you look at it. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the template. The section seems to me to be thoroughly and reliably sourced. Perhaps you could point out which statements you feel need more sourcing? Qarnos 07:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The "eye witnesses" claim's source is a self published website! Not to mention the article presents it's opinion as fact. Ignoring Jones based on RoyBoy's opinion is a gross violation of WP:NPOV, regardless of the self-published counter arguments (read WP:RS, WP:SOAP, WP:COI WP:Undue Weight and WP:NPOVT to get where I'm coming from). I can see SLC is notable (I didn't need your sarcasm to figure that out thank you). If you want to cite (and attribute) popular mechanics, fine, but I want to cite (and attribute) Jones, thus the article becomes more neutral (since we have added a counter-argument to PM.) — Selmo ^(talk) 18:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay Perhaps I was wrong about it being self-published website. Regardless, look at this article from the same site that attacks PM. — Selmo ^(talk) 19:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

What sarcasm? It was easy to confirm SLC notability, you asked an easy question, I gave you the easy answer; but that isn't my fault. I took the liberty, and my time, to explain that the link you provided is not only not notable, but is full of misinformation of its own. Posting further links simply isn't constructive. Also do not attempt WP:Wikilawyering anyone, especially me, as you've already shown an inability to apply policy with WP:WEB. Neutrality isn't about balancing out opinions; if that were the case every argument in every article could descend into point, counter-point and counter-counter-point. If an opinion is notable, we add it... I did that for "firing shotguns on fireproofed steel; critics find this unconvincing." I didn't need to, and perhaps it should be removed as their opinion is not-notable, but I did add it. Asserting conflicts of interest has little to do with the content of the debate, and even less to do with Loose Change. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I deleted your Response section, as it was poorly written. I started to correct it, but then removed it entirely as this has more to do with Popular Mechanics, not Loose Change. Also, I'm unsure how Alex's allegations are notable... cousins, uh... so what? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't wikilawyering. I was simply writing down some policies i felt may have applied. I thought you were being sarcastic when you were suceeding every statement with an explanation point. Thirdly, please retact your "poorly written" and "you obviously know know policy' comment as I have interperted them as insulting. Finally, if you want to remove Alex, I will remove all sources that have nothing to do Loose Change that are negitive. He's perfectly notable, he was the father of 9/11 truth!

Anyway, I still dont see why your opinion matter so much. If by "correcting" Jones, you mean "Alex Jones is an idiot" or "Jones article is wrong in many places ['Source whitehouse.gov']" then I don't know how you are going to grasp the WP:NPOV, let alone see past your biases.— Selmo ^(talk) 12:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Do not use policy to justify you edits, please use reasoning. Of course, people may disagree with you... if they do and you continue to belittle them and push your edits, it won't reflect well on you will not help you achieve what you think is fair.

If you bothered to look at the website, I merely copy and pasted the sentences from it, including the exclamation points.

Your addition was full of typos, and again has nothing to do with Loose Change itself; so why I would retract anything because of you're sensitivities is beyond me. You used WP:WEB inappropriately, stop using policy as a lazy way to justify you're edits.

I didn't say Alex wasn't notable. (He obviously is since he has a Wikipedia article) That does not mean every opinion/link he has is notable.

Do not give ultimatums, especially if it involves article content. Disruptive editing isn't looked upon kindly. Do you think this is a forum where you can act badly to get your way? It isn't. You simply undermine yourself by doing that, regardless if you are right or wrong.

If you don't see why my opinion matters, then why should I care about your opinions? Wikipedia is edited by consensus, if you ignore other people... you have automatically removed yourself from that process.

Alex and other non-expert crusaders tend to be wrong (and usually not-notable) because their arguments aren't very good; its as simple as that. Questions raised by a minority of experts, are answered and/or have alternative explanations (ie. unidentified molten metal, cell phones, WTC 7 collapse). People tend to accept or reject these either based on their biases (follow authority, skeptical of authority) or based on their understanding of the concepts involved.

Many people can make up their own minds based on more than whether or not they trust a given authority. I generally don't trust politicians/military/bureaucrats... does that mean I think they are capable/smart enough to pull of 9/11 for their own gain. That's giving them WAY too much credit! They ARE smart enough to cover up their mistakes (they make plenty, like the rest of us do, then a few more because they are corrupt), and then take advantage of the aftermath for their own gain. But that doesn't mean they planned it; they merely took advantage of it. (see: Hijacking Catastrophe) - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed two of the templates. Merging the criticism section into other sections isn't an option; as criticism sections are common for controversial films. Unreliable template is removed, as it has not been established there are any unreliable sources. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Film school

Given that Avery most likely would not have made Loose Change had he been accepted into film school, I think it is important to have this fact in the article. It is written in an NPOV way. I don't see the issue. -- Qarnos 21:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Calm the heck down. If you don't like it, fine I won't revert you. Writing with anger is counterproductive. — Selmo ^(talk) 15:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Original Research

I have added the original research and unreferenced tags to the "Content" section. I suggest that we should revamp the content and criticism sections to deal only with the film itself, not the claims it makes. We already have an article on 9/11 conspiracy theories and we don't need to deal with it here. -- Qarnos 21:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. That sounds good with me. — Selmo ^(talk) 15:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. Simplify the criticism so that it contains only generic criticisms of Loose Chaange the film? A quick glance through other controversial documentaries, do list generic and specific criticism of a films content. Please clarify. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm just not sure a point-by-point debunking of the films claims is necessary when we have a whole article which does exactly that. Most of the claims in LC are recycled garbage anyway. Likewise - there is no need to list the specific points made by the film. It's all the same old crap and we can link users to the 9/11 conspiracy theories article.

That's not to say there should be no criticism - of course there should be. We could simply have a section titled "Factual accuracy" and detail the general response by critics with links to the work of Roberts, et al.

Just a thought.

-- Qarnos 08:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand, yes we came across this before when the criticism section was much larger and was taking the form of a point by point rebuttal. It was significantly reduced and was designed to cover the main topics and several types of criticisms made by most critics. The actual length of the section can be certainly be tailored according to taste, however a large criticism section for a controversial film – which has received a lot of criticism – is appropriate and neutral.

"Factual accuracy" would very much restrict what could be included, and I see no reason to start a precedent... especially for a heavily criticized documentary. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. I spend so much time in debunking forums that I sometimes forget how very few people in the real world swallow this stuff. -- Qarnos 22:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

Since User:Qarnos has shown aagression towards me shown here and the above section, where he bold words which to me looks like he was angered by my edit regarding Avery's schooling. RoyBoy seems to be acting like the boss of the article; edit warring, calling me a "WikiLawyer" when it wasn't my intention, reverting me based on his opinion and ignoring my views because I'm "wrong", going through what I posted was loosly related policies which he used to attack my ill-considered "unfamiliarness" with Wikipedia, responded to my mistake about sarcasm with hostility. I am going to request informal mediation, since I'm being targeted as one of those "truthers" that dosen't know anything. I am calling a truce and I hope the two other parties will join me. — Selmo ^(talk) 16:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The case has been accepted, thusly I am removing the template here. The Rhymesmith 21:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

For the record, my so-called "personal attack" was my response to Selmo leaving a warning on my talk page for edit-warring after I reverted one of his/her edits:

Generally speaking, the 3RR warning is given when users make 3 reverts, not one. If you wish to flag the section as POV, then do so. But do not flag it as having unreliable sources when this is not the case.

Or perhaps you feel we should just replace the page with "LOL inside job!!!11!!1"

Now, moving on, for the second time you have removed this quote from the article:

“ We know there are errors in the documentary, and we’ve actually left them in there so that people discredit us and do the research for themselves. ”

You claim it is from an "attack site" which is a blatant falsehood. It is an interview with Korey Rowe from a website which has nothing to do with 9/11 conspiracy theories. The quote is entirely pertinent to the film Loose Change. It is not a POV issue. If a real film-maker said "I left this scene out because I wanted the audience to think about X", would you take issue with that?

In this case, Rowe stated that they left mistakes in on purpose. Why should we exclude this from the article?

Update: I will also add that since the comment is regarding the movie, it does not fall under WP:BIO in the first place.

-- Qarnos 21:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Like many new passionate editors Selmo believes that because ze has a perspective not in the article, it should be automatically included because of X, Y and Z policy ze glanced through; and as such has continued to push edits (creating said edit conflict(s)) contrary to opinions of those who have been involved with the article slightly longer than ze has... and doing so by vaguely referring to policy. I'll give Selmo credit in that they are using appropriate dispute resolution. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Im not a new editor! No, I do understand policy. Please don't belittle me by claiming I don't. Look at my edit history and you'll see I have some experiance. Please stop ignoring me. — Selmo ^(talk) 12:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Instead of talking to me as if I had a valid perspective; you rhymed off policy and continued editing as if my objections meant nothing. As a result you ignored me and others who have been maintaining this article; that was incredibly rude... but you seemed to be more concerned about exclamation points. You're right, I should have said inexperienced editor. I checked you're entire edit history; you are new compared to me.

As Qarnos has already told you, grow a thicker skin and focus on reasoning for your edits not other users. If you do that, people might be more helpful and less hostile to your suggestions. Demands and ultimatums have no place here; and few serious Wikipedians have patience for people who think they can make them, waste time on petty points, and take editorial control of articles based on their interpretation of policy. I do have patience; that's why I even bothered writing this. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to be rude. I deidn't mean to push POV. Please assume good faith. I hoinestly ddon't care anymore. If my edits are close to vandealism, so be it. Everyone makes mistakes, right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Selmo (talk • contribs).

Absolutely, for example I created a list which was eventually deleted; it annoyed me because it seemed notable and useful to me, and I wasn't very nice to an editor who listed it for deletion (I think he was still wrong the first time)... the 2nd time I had to concede it was hard to maintain and complete.

I have always assumed good faith, you obviously felt your Response section balanced and improved the article. So it wasn't vandalism at all... but for reasons I've stated above it unfortunately did not accomplish that. One thing that I feel was behind your actions was your interpretation of WP:NPOV.

Neutral in NPOV does not mean balancing points back and forth and allowing people to defend their ideas/work on Wikipedia. It is about trying to ensure that the conventional wisdom about a certain subject is in the article. If there is unconventional wisdom, it needs to be stated by someone truly notable. For example Matt Taibbi quote is unconventional and he's not that well known... but he does write for a notable publication. Alex Jones is notable, but his opinions need to have made an impact on the subject at hand in order to be included in the article. If his allegations were published, responded to, by a notable publication... or even included in a new version of Loose Change, then they could possibly be added to this article. As it stands he's a notable guy with a non-notable website/publication and some unconventional allegations. We also try to avoid allegations unless they are mentioned by the media and/or court precedings.

No hard feelings I hope. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Biographical Section

Has someone fack-checked the biographical information for Rowe which emphasises milliary service in light of his arrest on 7/23/2007 for desertion?

Current event?

I noticed someone added the current event tag. Am I alone in thinking this should be removed? At least until there is a definitive date for the release of Final Cut? Anything else is just guessing. -- Qarnos 08:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the "current event" refers to Korey's legal troubles. Has he been released yet? --Aude (talk) 10:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

How is that specifically relevant to the article about the film?--ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

"supported by the 9/11 truth movement"

I have removed (for the second time) a statement added by User:Knarly that Loose Change is "supported by the 9/11 truth movement" (which leads into "and disputed by the counter video...").

The reason I have done this is because this claim is totally false. The 9/11 Truth movement has no unified voice. There are many in the truth movement who dispute the claims of Loose Change and instead favour such ideas as space-based energy weapons, elaborate Pentagon "fly-overs" and the use of CGI to create the "false" impression of aircraft being involved in the attack.

In addition, the statement seems to be used in this context in an attempt to diminish the substance of the "disputed" statement. However, I will ignore that for now and try to assume good faith.

If anyone can provide a reliable source for the claim that Loose Change is supported by the 9/11 truth movement, then we can make some progress. Otherwise, I do not expect to see that statement being re-inserted into the article.

-- Qarnos 10:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation and your patience as I am relatively new to Wiki. You are correct about the amorphous nature of the 911 Truth movement; however, by definition (of a 911 Truther) those who seek 911 Truth want answers to the questions raised by Loose Change - therefore the claim that Loose Change is supported by the 911 truth movement is NOT totally false.

Nevertheless, I see your point of view on this issue.

BTW, a lot of peripheral claims have been parachuted into 911 Truth (such as CGI no-plane proponents) whose only purpose seems to be to discredit others who have valid questions and concerns about the official explanation a.k.a. the official conspiracy theory.

Knarly 08:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to discuss this. I'm glad I didn't jump to conclusions when I first read your edit summary.

Your argument for the inclusion of the statement, to me, seems to be that all "9/11 truthers" support the idea that 9/11 was an inside job. This is very different from claiming that they all support Loose Change. I could delve further into this issue but the point of this talk page is to discuss ways of improving the article, not debating the various different positions.

If you want to include a reference to the general support that Loose Change has from the 9/11 truth movement, then I would suggest two things:

1) Find a reliable (ie: not Prison Planet) source for the claim: That a significant majority of the movement support Loose Change. It might also be a good idea to state whether they support the film as a whole, or just it's general line of reasoning.

2) The way you phrased it seemed pretty POV to myself. Instead of writing "The accuracy of Loose change is supported by X and refuted by Y" (which sounds too much like a tit-for-tat argument), perhaps we could write something like, "The accuracy of Loose Change is the subject of some debate. Members of X claim the film is (etc, etc) whilst Y says (etc, etc)."

Even then, I am not happy with the example I posed. It is still giving too much weight to the conspiracy side of things. The aim of Wikipedia is to provide a description of the consensus (majority) view on a particular topic - whether or not it is true. The consensus view of 9/11 (at least amongst Wikipedia editors) seems to be that 9/11 was a terrorist act. This means that we should report on 9/11 related issued in this light. That does not mean we exclude the conspiracy theories altogether (there are actually quite a few articles devoted specifically to them), but they must be represented as a minority view.

On the other hand, since this article is about Loose Change, which is a conspiracy video, you could perhaps give a bit of leeway to the undue weight issue. I'm not sure. Perhaps the other editors could contribute to this discussion?

-- Qarnos 12:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

MY TWO CENTS, (OK, MAYBE THREE)

---

Re: The comments in the more recent postings above:

"Find a reliable (ie: not Prison Planet) source for the claim:"

as well as the comment:

"Alex Jones is notable, but his opinions need to have made an impact on the subject at hand in order to be included in the article. If his allegations were published, responded to, by a notable publication..."

are peculiar in light of the references in the main article discussed here.

1. Have the authors of these quotes even visited Prison Planet? I just visited Prison Planet and selected the first heading.

I found articles from, among others: Financial Times, Los Angeles Daily News, St.Petersburg Times, Reuters, AP, The Oregonian, Oakland Tribune, World Net Daily, The Guardian, The Wall Street Journal, London Evening Standard... Is there a question as to the "reliability" of these, and if so, what is the concern? If not, then exactly whay does the author of the comment means regarding Alex Jones' sources? Might he want to retract, or elaborate?

2. While visiting some of the "references" in the Loose Change main article page, I was aghast to notice that some were to home pages without an author's name, discussing unsourced photos (which have the label 'FARS' right on them) and stating "facts" without qualification or references. See for example: "Reference" 30: http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/crashdebris.html.

My question is: If Alex Jones' Prison Planet is not "reliable" when he sources the media outlets above, then why is a webpage such as the one above, not objected to as a "reliable" reference? Maybe we need a "Media Watch" of Wikipedia!

P.S. #1: I also looked for the Wiki Page on "Prison Planet" to consult any discussion on the "reliability" of the information or views expressed on Prison Planet, but alas, there was no page!.

P.S. #2: Prison Planet is currently getting FOUR TIMES MORE daily internet hits than Wikipedia, which has continued to drop in daily hits since April, and is now around 5,000 daily hits compared to Prison Planet's 20,000 hits. http://www.quantcast.com/prisonplanet.com

I guess we know which one is considered more relevant by the internet community!

I eagerly await a reasoned response to the points I raised above.

Charles 24.92.180.212 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 23:14:22, August 18, 2007 (UTC).

I dispute the accuracy of the web traffic statistics you've cited. Wikipedia receives far more than 5,000 hits a day; that number is several orders of magnitude off. According to Alexa, Wikipedia has a traffic rank of 9, and Prison Planet has a rank of 9368. That would place Wikipedia as one of the top ten most visited sites on the web. According to Netcraft, Wikipedia has a site rank of 31, and Prison Planet has a site rank of 7495. --Zantolak 09:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

MY BAD

---

You are right. It wasn't Quantcast, but my mis-reading of it. Wiki gets 46 million unique hits monthly, way more than Prison Planet. I believe the rest of my statements are correct. I welcome constructive criticism, as should we all. Thank you.

Charles 24.92.180.212 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 17:05:23, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

Simply because Prison Planet uses some reliable sources, does not make it reliable... likewise for Wikipedia. In my opinion Prison Planet isn't notable either... as it doesn't seem to have impacted significantly on the conspiracy debate. 911review.com has impacted that discussion, and can be seen as more reliable/notable as a result. Though that indeed doesn't make it reliable and can/should be corroborated/replaced by another source.

Wikipedia improves by everyone watching it, besides there already is an unofficial Wiki-watcher. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Funding for Film

Is there information on who financed the creation of this film? --Doctorfoxxe 20:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that it was self-financed by those involved in its production. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Loose Change (Screening flyer).jpg

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

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

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

BetacommandBot 07:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Versions

The description of versions is utterly confusing. It became famous when the second edition was shown and then they created a second edition? 217.37.109.17 15:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I will clarify in the article. There was a "second edition", and then "second edition recut". - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

"Refuted" vs "strongly criticized"

ManySome of the claims contained within the film have been strongly criticized refuted by mainstream media outlets

Having been asked to consult a dictionary, I find that "refute" can mean "to prove wrong by argument or evidence; show to be false or erroneous" or "to deny the truth or accuracy of" according to Merriam-Webster. American Heritage Dictionary backs this up, although WordNet and Dictionary.com record no such second usage, and the Online Etymology Dictionary notes that "Since c.1964 linguists have frowned on the subtle shift in meaning towards 'to deny,' as it is used in connection with allegation." This squares with what I already believed about the world, namely that in normal speech it almost always denotes truth or accuracy of criticisms.

While it would appear based on some of the dictionary definitions that "refuted" could be read in NPOV-fashion, it would also appear that the more natural reading is "proven wrong by mainstream media outlets". And I am not sure how anything is gained from the "strongly criticized" wording; perhaps the constant tendentiousness of the tinfoil-hat crowd has some editors a bit punchy? Eleland 12:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

A bit, wasn't intended to you specifically; sorry about that. :"p Indeed I was referring to the secondary definition. On top of that however, I would say having read many criticisms of Loose Change, these media outlets, books and researchers do not merely criticize the documentary. Many deny (refute) the basis of its arguments. (ie. quotes, physics, factoids) Since they go that far, I believe we should as well. Take for example:

UL did not certify any steel as suggested. In fact, in U.S. practice, steel is not certified at all; rather structural assemblies are tested for their fire resistance rating in accordance with a standard procedure such as ASTM E 119 (see NCSTAR 1-6B). That the steel was “certified ... to 2000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours” is simply not true. [3]

The entire nist.gov link does not criticize Loose Change; but it outright refutes (denies accuracy of) steel certification meme (does this for seismic meme too)... a point Loose Change (2nd edition recut) makes. Compromise is good in Wikipedia, and indeed there is little harm in changing to "strongly criticized", but I feel it is a weaker statement and less accurate. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's not forget the fact that Wikipedia is about "representing fairly and without bias all significant views." It is not supposed to be a reflection of your own personal views, opinions or intuition on the subject. The fact remains that there are some rather vocal and strong proponents of the claims made within the documentary, as well as the critics. See WP:NPOV. 79.75.129.50 10:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, that is why there is a link to Scholars for 9/11 Truth is in the lead, they are the minority; and they therefor given appropriate weight in the article, as per WP:NPOV. I'm sorry it does not met with your POV; but I understand Wikipedia policy quite well. "Refuted" is strong, but as I've stated below that is an accurate characterization of some of the reviews and responses to some of Loose Change claims. I just realized it says Many, I will change many to some. Sorry for not changing that beforehand. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Changed many to some. Only some claims are refuted, while many are criticized. Mental note for future reference. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 23:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Also delineated Scholars from refuted claims, they focus on more debatable aspects of conspiracy theories. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 23:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Dubious

That any any of the 9/11 alternative media have "peer-reviewed, open-access, evidence-based research" is disputed, even if referenced. The details of the dispute are such that it probably shouldn't be in the lead.

That the editorial board has prominent members is also disputed, and is not referenced.

This article is supposed to be about the film, not the TM's view of the film. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The link and citation provided, http://www.journalof911studies.com/ , explicitly states that:

"The Journal of 9/11 Studies is a peer-reviewed, open-access, electronic-only journal covering the whole of research related to 9/11/2001. All content is freely available online.

Our mission is to provide evidence-based, peer-reviewed research that furthers the cause of truth and justice. More about our efforts toward this goal can be found at the website for Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice.

Sincerely,

Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan, co-editors"

Then on the "Contact Us" page, it goes on to further state:

"Manuscripts to be considered for publication should be sent to one of the Editors. All papers will be subjected to peer-review prior to online publication."

It also lists the following "Advisory Editorial Board" members who provide this peer-review:

"Frank Carman (Ph.D.), Alex Floum, Prof. Marcus Ford, Derrick Grimmer (Ph.D.), Prof. Richard McGinn, Kimberly Moore, Robert Moore, Joseph Phelps (MS, PE), Prof. Diana Ralph, Lon Waters (Ph.D.) and Prof. Paul Zarembka."

Are you seriously trying to suggest that this is a bogus website and that these people simply do not exist??

It seems very biased to me to mention critics of the claims made within the film, and then try to censor any mention of the proponents. The childish edit war that ensued strikes me as WP:POINT '-ing' and Wikipedia:Gaming the system. Not the sort of behaviour I would expect from an adult administrator. Knowledge Enabler 15:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that J911S has such a fast publication turnaround that any peer review is at most nominal. That's WP:OR on my part, but it seems to require an external source that it's peer-reviewed.

And I'm objecting to

1. References to peer-reviewed studies, real or imagined, in the lead. The disputed sentences could be expanded to a paragraph in the body, noting that they claim to be peer-reviewed, not that they are peer-reviewed.
2. The word "prominent" anywhere.
3. The list of editors. That should only be in an article on J911S. (If J911S has an article, or a section in 911TM, we probably should link there.)

As I said before, this is supposed to be an article on the film, not on the TM's view of the film. As the TM is a small fraction of the relevant communities (film critics, engieneers, scientists, etc.), their views should only be given a small part of the article.

— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

This talk page is a peer-reviewed journal run by dozens of Nobel Prize winners. See how easy it is? We said it, so it must be true. Okay, </sarcasm>. We certainly cannot cite the Scholars for 9/11 Truth as a proper scientific journal based solely on its own word. We need the word of someone generally perceived as credible. Furthermore, the extensive exposition about "peer reviewed" is actually well-poisoning in reverse: buffing up the source to predispose the reader to believe it. Eleland 19:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

There is an interesting irony here, as it appears that you are both trying to prove a negative. If you are assuming that what is stated on The Journal of 9/11 Studies own website is nothing other than false claims about itself and its nature, and that the names listed as Editorial Board members are bogus, where is your own evidence or citations to suggest that this may be the case. It seems very implausible to claim that such an organization is bogus, and that the people who claim to be involved simply do not exist, just because you might disagree with it. Occam's razor would suggest that this organization is real, the Editorial Board members are real people, and their claims to peer-review material submitted to thier own website is real. There is no evidence, other than your own prejudices, to suggest otherwise. Attempts to try and censor this body out of existance, based on baseless claims that it might not be "real", seem ludicrous.

I'd tend to agree with Arthur Rubin that noting that they claim to be peer-reviewed, not that they are peer-reviewed, seems to be the most rational course of action here. Nevertheless, the fact that there are indeed proponents, as well as critics deserves to be mentioned. Knowledge Enabler 20:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Proponents are being mentioned; "peer-review" means zero, evidence based... huh? What else would it be, faith based? Naming barely notable people, another no go, reverting. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

RoyBoy, why are you taking unilateral action to revert a paragraph that is part of an ongoing discussion before a consensus has emerged? As already mentioned previously there is no need to indulge in a childish edit war, and I suggest that you familiarize yourself fully with WP:NPOV and WP:POINT. Firstly, your irrational claim that peer-review means "zero" is ridiculous, as it is a very important, well recognized and long-standing concept within the publication of academic works. It is also a cornerstone of the modern scientific method. Secondly, the statement: "are only supported by a minority of academics within the Scholars for 9/11 Truth movement." is a blatant lie. The following link, http://stj911.org/members/index.html , provides a list of the 400+ current members, the general consensus amongst them being that the "evidence suggests the World Trade Center Towers were destroyed by a controlled explosive demolition". Your inclusion of the word "minority" is nothing other than a fabrication with no basis that serves to support your own POV. 79.75.129.50 10:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I know what peer review means, I also know its a term with no meaning if the reviewers are not independant experts in relevant subjects. I could do my own "peer reviewed" publication, but if the only people reading it are my immediate circle of like/open minded contemporaries; then it wasn't a rigorous review. 400+ current members is a drop in the bucket given there are millions of academics. Some creationists proclaim 200+ scientists are skeptical of evolution... taken from a pool of 100's of thousands, that speaks more to the minority status of those scientists... rather than putting doubt in the subject they are critical of. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Having conclusively knocked down your straw man, will you now address what I actually said? We certainly cannot cite the Scholars for 9/11 Truth as a proper scientific journal based solely on its own word. We need the word of someone generally perceived as credible. Furthermore, the extensive exposition about "peer reviewed" is actually well-poisoning in reverse: buffing up the source to predispose the reader to believe it. Eleland 19:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Possible anon WP:3RR violation

I assume all the reverting 79.* anons are the same person. They have the same argumentative edit summaries. (Note also that there is clearly no consensus to include the material quoted from Truther websites in the lead. It might be acceptable elsewhere in the article, but no one has tried that.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Music and narration criticism

Is the oft-encountered critical point of poorly edited, messily articulated narration with quite largely varying loudness and overly prominent "background" music universal enough to warrant entry to the article, or even a mention under "criticisms"? As an HND qualified sound engineer, I would say so. Perhaps - however - the fact that this piece is categorised under "B-films" is a prerequisite for poor production qualities. In my experiences of reading reviews of this film, it is a common point. - Thejerseybean 11:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Final Cut

Should we create a new article for the Final Cut or just edit the 2nd edition. The final cut had completely new martial. --Evanw 17:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

A new article /sub article is doubtful, since even with new material, it essentially is the same documentary as before. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the 'Final Cut' is an almost completely different film, and effectively renders the previous two films completely irrelevant. So either a new article should be done or this one should be completely overhauled with the content of the 'Final Cut'. Wallacefan 05:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I too, think, the Final Cut deserves a new article and the differences between the two films (Loose Change x edition and Final Cut) should be clear to everyone, mostly because the major criticism apply to the the first and not the last film. New article. Up. Pain 08:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

We don't know the major criticisms will not apply to the last film, because it hasn't been released yet. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the Final Cut was released on 11 November, and is very different to earlier editions. The criticisms here are all aimed at the 2nd Edition; many of them do not apply at all to the Final Cut (eg Pentagon missile).

I would support the creation of a new article (and renaming of this one), as the majority of this article (from the 'Presentation' section onwards) is essentially obsolete and should not be in the same article as information about the Final Cut. Corleonebrother 20:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. My mistake. There's still not enough time for the critics of V1 and V2 to have seen and commented on V3, even if they are inclined to do so, so unless you have a source, it would be incorrect to say that the critics of V1 and V2 see a difference between those and V3, even if there is a clear difference. (What is the grammatical form for "I don't know if the depedent clause is accurate, but the sentence makes sense either way. The conditional tense, such as this, implies that I believe it's accurate, and the subjunctive tense implies that I do not believe it's accurate.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

But it's also incorrect for us to assume that the criticism of V1 and V2 automatically applies to V3, isn't it? Corleonebrother (talk) 22:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Hence we cannot have a separate article for V3 until the matter is resolved, but it must remain a single paragraph in this article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

A single paragraph is NOT enough, we should differentiate the article very clearly and start off with a new one. Currently it's a mess, it is unclear how the timeline goes and how the films developed, at least for a first time reader with no prior knowledge. I'm for changing the article and make a new one.

There is a list of differences in this article here (Italian + English):

http://undicisettembre.blogspot.com/2007/12/loose-change-final-cut-in-tv-in-italia.html

It's pretty solid evidence that we need a separate article. Pain (talk) 08:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

What matter needs to be resolved and how would that happen? And what "single paragraph" are you referring to? I think we at least need to gives dates for when the criticism was made, so that the reader knows they were criticising V2. Corleonebrother (talk) 11:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

This paragraph, in the present version:

In November of 2007 a fourth version of the video entitled "Loose Change Final Cut" was released online pay-per-view and is no longer available for free on Google Video due to a reported cost of over $200,000 to produce, financed by outside parties such as Alex Jones. This version removes still more errors from previous versions, and presents more of a LIHOP ("letting it happen on purpose") thesis than the previous versions. The running time of Loose Change Final Cut is over 2 hours.

That seems to be about all we can say, except I added the {{cn}} tag, as we need a source for any errors removed or added. (We probably need sources for most of the #History section, but....) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I've updated the tone of the #History section now that the final cut has been released. I removed that sentence you tagged, as I don't think we'll find a source for that in the near future (and I also didn't get the impression that V3 was more LIHOP when I watched it - the term is poorly defined anyway). Tag anything in that section you feel needs a source, and I'll have a scout around. Corleonebrother (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Removing WP:SYNTH

Just to clarify my recent deletions to the criticism section (so that they are not misinterpreted)... they are all SYNTH because they are not direct criticisms of the film. If this section is to include that level of detail about criticism of the claims in the film, they need to be sourced to direct critiques of it (such as the three mentioned at the top of the section), and be essentially paraphrases (or better still, direct quotes) of the criticisms those sources make. Corleonebrother (talk) 21:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I concur with that. However, likewise, we cannot use the movie's web site as a source for the content of the film, whether they "corrected errors" or added new ones, etc., but only as to what they intended to put in the film. I added a few appropriate tags. Others may feel that the unreferenced sections need to be excised entirely. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

They were wise and necessary edits. I had assumed without checking that the cited sources were actually anti-Loose Change sites offering critiques, rather than just supporting the assertions made to contradict the film. <eleland/talkedits> 00:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

On the up side it does make it shorter; though new refs shouldn't be too hard to find... I would like to get the flight instructor meme back. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed several verify tags, the one for the Content section... its an uncontroversial retelling of what is in the film; there isn't a need to footnote everything, one ref covers it all. If something is contested (within the context of the Content section), then ask for verification of the source. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Loose Change compares the collapse of the World Trade Center to other notable high rise fires. However, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), clarifies the differences in building design, size and structural damage, and contends that compromised fireproofing should also be taken into account. Popular Mechanics points out in many conspiracy theories there is no exploration of the effect of fire on unprotected structural steel, which "loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F." The "expert" Kevin Ryan from Underwriters Laboratories was actually employed in a water testing subsidiary, Underwriters Laboratories does not certify structural steel, and ASTM E119 certification involves intact fireproofing as conducted by Underwriters Laboratories for the NIST in 2004. The NIST could find no record of any previous certification tests ever being conducted on the novel WTC floor system. The NIST demonstrated that fireproofing could be dislodged by firing shotguns at fireproofed steel.

I'm posting this for future reference, it is a key paragraph about central claims in the film. While much of this is Synth, some of it is not... such as Kevin Ryan's credentials. I intend to rework it with appropriate references. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Finished new section. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Loose Change compares the collapse of the World Trade Center to other notable high-rise fires which did not collapse. Internet Detectives rebuts there are differences in building design, significant structural damage and intact fireproofing; as most steel loses over half its strength at 600°C (1112°F). They also found firefighters during those fires were pulled back for fear of collapse and that The Windsor Building comparison fails to mention that its perimeter floors supported by steel columns collapsed during the fire. The "expert" Kevin Ryan from Underwriters Laboratories (UL) was actually employed in a water testing subsidiary, UL does not certify structural steel, and ASTM E119 certification is not meant to predict performance in real uncontrolled fires. UL found no evidence of any firm conducting tests on WTC materials in the past.

Obnoxious vandalism

I swept through this article today and found SEVERAL vicious comments that were put into the article to slant it in a negative light. I removed the comments, can people save their debate for this page please?--24.22.29.170 (talk) 20:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Changed some non-objective verbs

There were a couple points where the narration was skewing towards the subjects' opinions and presenting them as fact.

For example, the filmmakers made revisions " to tighten the focus on certain key areas and to remove inaccuracies and copyrighted material."

My edit: ". . . each time to tighten the focus on certain key areas and to remove what the filmmakers believed to be inaccuracies and copyrighted material.

Similarly,

Soon after this, Avery recognized that "there were inconsistencies that needed to be fixed and improvements made"

I changed to

Soon after this, Avery decided that "there were inconsistencies that needed to be fixed and improvements made"