Jump to content

Talk:Loose Change: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
TehQ (talk | contribs)
75 edits
No edit summary
Kntrabssi (talk | contribs)
2,544 edits
Line 32: Line 32:


:This isn't a discussion forum. [[User:Mimbster|Mimbster]] 21:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:This isn't a discussion forum. [[User:Mimbster|Mimbster]] 21:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

:: Actually, that is exactly what these pages are used for. [[User:Kntrabssi|Kntrabssi]] 03:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


== Cleanup / NPOV ==
== Cleanup / NPOV ==

Revision as of 03:02, 22 March 2006

Rewriting the Article

I've gone through and done a complete rewrite to help clean it up. I've tried as much as possible not to remove anything added by anyone else although there is one thing I removed regarding the info about the Fox News Team which I thought didn't add anything to the article. Most of the other things were moved and/or rewritten:

  • added a history section (compiled from the official site)
  • renamed the 9/11 movement criticism section so it didn't make it sound like the criticisms were only coming from the 9/11 movement.
  • turned the factual accuracy section into a sub-section of criticisms...
  • rewrote the assertions section to keep it inline with the sections of the documentary and because the previous one was hard to follow
  • added a secondary picture to "Assertions" for comparison as a possible replacement
  • added a section under history for "Editions". I have only included brief info as I haven't seen the first edition so maybe someone else can expand it?

Hopefully this should be a start for the cleaning up the article and sorry if I accidentally removed something you added. TehQ 05:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup Tag

ok to remove or still work to be done? TehQ 00:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Length of time 9/11 took to plan and finance

I think an important point is that 9/11 took many years to come to frution, almost all the planning having taken place during the two Clinton Administrations. This fact alone is enough to render many of the movie's claims, particularly as regards Republican/Bush collusion, pretty absurd.

Irrelevant. This isn't a discussion forum and it has nothing to do with the article itself. TehQ 23:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually this fundamental historical fact renders much of the video out of sync with historical reality.
No, we're talking about the "article" not the "video". Whether the claims made by the video are accurate or not has nothing to do with the article. The place of the article is simply to talk about the fact that the video was created and cite credible references about it. There are forums where you can discuss your thoughts or what fundamental historical facts exist about the video. Wikipedia is not that place. TehQ 19:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Counterpoint?

COUNTERPOINT to the official version? It COMPLETELY refutes it, puts the lie to it, impugns it, shreds it, that is to say exposes the official story AS A MONUMENTAL LIE of HISTORIC PROPORTIONS. Be sure to watch the 2nd edition--which is expanded, refined, and vetted for accuracy.

do your part to bring justice back to America once and for all.

God bless.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.123.236 (talk • contribs)

This isn't a discussion forum. Mimbster 21:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that is exactly what these pages are used for. Kntrabssi 03:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup / NPOV

This article needs cleaning up and refutations to the rather facile argument put forward by the documentary. Might even deserve deletion, it seems sort of self-promoting. 129.12.228.161 15:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

66.158.35.2 20:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)I think that although the film puts foward controversial topics, this article should strictly cover the video, and no refuttle[reply]

whats wrong with the video?

I did not see anything that was “inaccurate” with the video (the guy just stated facts). How can it be self-profiting or self-promoting since the video is free and I didn’t even see the name of the guy? Why is the article flaged as being biased (or not neutral)? Licio 05:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The video states many highly disputed "facts" and though this is an article about the video, it must be NPoV and thus not take the video's claims as gospel. --Rosicrucian 06:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What "facts"? It's an interesting video, but simply un-true, and that's the bottomeline.71.109.21.90 02:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

debunking?

The “Snopes on Insider Trading” claims something the movie didn’t claim. The website said “In the days just prior to the 11 September 2001, large quantities of stock in United and American Airlines were traded by persons with foreknowledge of the upcoming 9/11 attacks.” The movie started that “put options” were placed on companies that had their shares damaged on 9/11. Licio 06:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the movie explained, "put options" are speculation that a stock will fall. The Snopes article directly addresses those claims, and mentions the "put options" directly. --Rosicrucian 06:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Snopes article uses only a single source to back up its claim and that source is the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. I don't see the Snopes article as a refutation at all; in fact, the article DOES say there was unusual activity in the days preceding 9/11: The Commission "investigated these rumors and found that although some unusual (and initially seemingly suspicious) trading activity did occur in the days prior to September 11, it was all COINCIDENTALLY INNOCUOUS and not the result of insider trading by parties with foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks" (emphasis added). These articles contain actual information, and you won't run the risk of accidentally stumbling onto the Snopes page about Bin Laden eating Cheetos in his cave:
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/12_06_01_death_profits_pt1.html :: http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/051602_liewontstand.html --Oscarwilde 22:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

“Snopes on the Pentagon” is based on opinion not fact. The book “The Frightening Fraud” is completely discredited because the author could not come up with a theory of what hit the building.Licio 06:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you'll look carefully, the majority of the points that were argued against in the Snopes article regarding the Pentagon are the same ones mentioned in the movie, most especially the claims that the plane only penetrated the first ring, and did no real structural damage.--Rosicrucian 06:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the video mentions damage at least through the third ring of the Pentagon which is the level shown completely torn down and under reconstructed in the photograph in the Snopes article. The article also shows the same small, circumstantial bit of exterior aluminum debris which is, quite conveniently I might add, from a section of a plane that clearly indicates what airline it comes from. It's a rather disappointing debunking and, personally, it makes me question how many times I've relied on Snopes. The information on Snopes is neither as convincing or compelling as the documentary counterpoint to Michael Moore's film, FahrenHYPE 9/11.--SeanCC 07:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of the sources mentioned above give any hard science to back up their claim as the movie did. They all use things us “this is unbelievable so it cant be true” type of arguments, which are completely shredded by the scientifical facts the movie presents.Licio 06:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Snopes articles present at least as much justification and research as the movie did, and as I said they are able to directly disprove the movie on several points. Many of the "scientifical facts" the movie puts forth are not very well researched at all, and some are outright misconceptions. The links I posted show just a few of the errors the film made. Snopes is not known for sloppy research on these sorts of things.--Rosicrucian 06:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's with your name "Rosicrucian"? Seems quite fitting that you go by that name and at the same time defend the official government story of 9/11. For all who don't know, the "Rosicrucians" were largely associated with the Templars and the Crusades. I take it that you are in favor of the Iraq War, with your anti-Muslim stance? That would explain why you attempt to believe the lies that the U.S. Government spreads throughout the globe. And yes, this post of mine is POV -- but that's ok because it is not part of the article. I wrote it in this discussion page to share my opinion.

There are too many liars in this globe, and a lot of those liars come from the U.S. Government and the corporate mainstream news media. If by now, after all these years, that the general public still believes for the most part, the official government story, then lies will only continue to multiply and threaten the very fabric of a free society. You people who continue to listen to the official government story and at the same time attempt to convince others that your convictions are "true" really have no idea of what kind of damage you are bringing on humanity as a whole, including yourselves. The more you proliferate lies and such, the more you jeopardize your lives in the long run. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archival McTannith (talk • contribs)

While you're certainly entitled to your opinion, it's not Wikipedia's place to promote any one view over another. As such, a fair look at the Loose Change video needs to be presented, and mention of the many disputed claims it makes must be made. Wikipedia is not a conspiracy theory website, nor is it a vehicle for promotion of a product - even a free product. If this article is to be relevant and meet Wikipedia's standards, it has to be revised to reflect this. --Rosicrucian 15:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is true. But just as much as Wikipedia is not a conspiracy theory website, it is not a website to falsify the claims made in the video which I believe this article is more biased toward. I also think the sentence regarding snopes.com is not about factual accuracy and should be moved to the 9/11 Truth Movement section. The section itself should be renamed to 'Rebuttals' or a similar title as it makes it look like the 9/11 Truth Movement are the only ones who refute the claims made in the video. TehQ 21:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missiles/Fuselage

"In particular, all claims that the planes used in the tower attacks shot missiles in the instant before they collided, were removed, as well as commentary about modification to the fuselage of the aircraft."

In edit 05:37, 22 February 2006 this passage was removed by Licio without comment or discussion. Is there a particular reason this passage should not be included? --Rosicrucian 16:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think an in-depth discussion on the differences between the two versions of the film might be helpful. It's not really clear from the article what corrections/additions were made between them. -- MisterHand 18:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed that part because I have not seen the video claiming that at all. The video never claimed missiles being shot from the planes that hit the towers. It has 1 eye witnesses saying the planes “looked like cargo planes, which seem to not belong in that area” (forgive me for the loose quoting). This is why I removed that passage. Licio 17:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The passage refers to an older version of the video, which had certain claims which were removed in the latest revision. Are you referring to the older version of the video? --Rosicrucian 20:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was not referring to a comparison to the old video, but I was trying to describe the second edition. Perhaps we should being to rewriting the article. Making separate sections, 1 for the first edition and 1 for the second edition. Licio 23:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unsigned commenting

Can people please sing their comments when they post? The name the guy has is completely irrelevant to this discussion. It was mentioned before this is not a talk forum, but it’s a place where we discus what should be changed in the article and that’s all. Licio 17:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I tracked down the last of the unsigned comments and fixed their sig.--Rosicrucian 20:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
La, la, la, you can't type, do, re, mi, bad typiiing!!! -zappa 03:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV?

What's the problem with the article? Save the word "strong" right next to "rebuttal", I can't see anything here that's not neutral. The article barely presents some of the claims made in the movie and they are clearly identified as just that - claims. Of course it would be nice if the article included details on the claims - and refutations right next to them - but it's certainly NPOV as it is. IMHO. Sippan 21:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "strong" is not neutral

This portion of a sentence taken from paragraph 4 is in no way neutral:


"The documentary is notable for presenting a strong rebuttal to the established versions of the events as officially recounted in the 9/11 Commission Report ..."


The structure of this sentence and the use of the word "strong" before "rebuttal" implies that these claims hold some precedence over the official accounts given in the 9/11 Commission Report. Usage of the word "strong" here is misleading and preferential, changing what would be a neutral sentence into an opinionated statement.


It should be removed.


I also question the use of the word "rebuttal", as Snopes and several other websites have challenged the factual accuracy of the film Loose Change. The film makes claims and they should be referred to as claims, theories, etc.; not "rebuttals," as whether anything has been rebutted or not is purely a matter of opinion. Just my two cents.

--Waychel 00:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The tag has been removed, but we should be vigilant. -- MisterHand 18:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fyi, I note that 'Oscarwilde' above has contributed nothing to wikipedia except to support the removal of the tag. 198.207.168.65 00:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Criticisms

MisterHand notes: "(reworked headers a bit, some npov edits, removed unnecessary sourcing (we don't need eight sources for one statement), turned in-line references into footnotes)"

I disagree, I think several sources for the critiques are necessary to show that many do not agree with numerous claims made in the film. I disagree about npov edits - this is the section for critiquing the film and the points made are not pov but factual. Bov 00:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. There is such a thing as over-sourcing, I think. We don't need several articles telling us the same thing over and over again. I would say that one source is preferable, but no more than two sources is necessary. (This is not a Wikipedia guideline by the way, just my personal opinion).
As for the NPOV edits, the section on Factual Accuracy is for discussing criticisms of the film...not adding our own. See WP:NOR and WP:NPOV for the guidelines on this. It's very important that the article itself not make judgements on the film. It's the difference between:
  • The film makes several outrageous and false claims (bad)
and
  • Bob Smith of the New York Times charges that the film makes "several outrageous and false claims (good)
I hope I'm making sense here. -- MisterHand 00:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, right now the article has, apart from the links to the movie itself, ten links to sites that argue against the movie. For the sake of NPOV, shouldn't there be at least a few links to sites that support and elaborate further on the conspiracy theory? Sippan 08:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Although I think that citations on both sides of the table should be about Loose Change specifically, and not about the theories within out of context...if that makes sense. -- MisterHand 15:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that providing sources of criticism is a necessary part of the article, as this informs the reader that much of the film's assertions, claims and presented facts are controversial and contested by a number of sources on both sides of the fence. However, I agree that having three footnotes in consecutive order (such as with the second sentence of the "9/11 Truth Movement Criticisms") is redundant. I would suggest limiting one footnote to this sentence while leaving the referenced links themselves INTACT at the bottom of the article. Sources can be listed under References, External Links, Debunking, etc. without being specifically mentioned as a footnote.

I do not agree with listing sites that agree with the film en masse. This is unnecessary and promotional of the film. If a reader is interested in finding more sources or information collaborating claims made in the film, I believe that they should be forwarded to the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Wiki, which provides such sources. This article should not be promoting the film or its theories. If it is going to give specific mention to certain claims within the film however, I personally believe that citing criticisms of those specific claims is relevant.

Just my opinion...

--Waychel 01:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One can argue that inclusion of a link to the official website and to the streaming videos serves to promote it. But removing them is censorship. TehQ 07:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References section

[NOTE: On 2006-03-06, 20:18, the References section cannot be edited. Please fix.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.229.141.151 (talk • contribs)

  • Hi. To change or add a reference, you need to go into the body of the article itself. All of the references are contained in <ref> tages, and automatically put to the bottom using the <references /> tag. See Wikipedia:Footnotes for more info on how this works. -- MisterHand 04:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms

I restored the 9/11 truth movement criticisms as a separate section - they are not at all the same as questions of factual accuracy and don't belong under such a title. 24.4.180.197 23:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't understand what you mean. The 9/11 Truth Movement stuff is doing exactly that: questioning the factual accuracy of the film. I don't see why it should get it's own section, especially considering both questions are so short. -- MisterHand 14:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction within Snopes

Compare what is read here (from Snopes)…

Despite the appearances of exterior photographs, the Boeing 757-200 did not "only damage the outside of the Pentagon." It caused damage to all five rings (not just the outermost one) after penetrating a reinforced, 24-inch-thick outer wall.

...with what Donald Rumsfeld said here (from Snopes)…

The Boeing 757 crashed into the outer edge of the building between the first and second floors, "at full power," Mr. Rumsfeld said. It penetrated three of the five concentric rings of the building.

Rumsfeld clearly tells of only three rings being penetrated, yet Snopes still holds to the “fact” that all five rings were penetrated. But later on in the page, Snopes pulls a 180 and says the following…

You'll recall from the discussions above that the hijacked airliner did not "only hit the ground floor of the Pentagon's first ring" — it struck the Pentagon between the first and second floors and blasted all the way through to the third ring.

This clerical error shows a contradiction that further obscures the question of how far the Pentagon was penetrated during the attack. Either Snopes fixes this, or I can just disregard its contribution to the debunking section, especially when there can be the possibility of more contradictions within the Snopes Pentagon page. -- mikecucuk 14:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dissecting the Snopes claims is not the goal of this article, as this is not an article on the Snopes article. Instead, the Snopes article is mentioned because it provides debunking of the claims of the Loose Change video, which is the focus of this article. Debunking sources are mentioned as NPOV, and linked without value judgements. As such, I'd say you'd need more evidence that they should be disregarded than this, considering the importance of NPOV in conspiracy theory articles. --Rosicrucian 06:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the importance of NPOV in this article when it comes to debunking, but shouldn't such a request also be given to the debunking source when it cannot even keep a straight basis of fact in the debunking process? If this isn't the case, then all Snopes is doing is disputing with the NPOV of this article toward opposing views of the conspiracy theory. That much, I can tell, is what really needs cleanup. --mikecucuk 14:20, 20 March (UTC)

Snopes is an external source, and really if you have criticisms or discussion of Snopes, they do have their own Wikipedia article. Bear in mind, the place of this article isn't to say whether the debunking sources are correct or incorrect, merely to demonstrate dissent where it is present. That's the NPoV. The article itself doesn't debunk Loose Change, it just presents dissenting opinions to show that they exist. --Rosicrucian 23:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I understand that now. The fact still remains, though: in this conspiracy theory, you either favor the theory or the official story (the 9/11 Commission Report, in this case). Snopes, from its external source, attemtps to debunk the Pentagon theory, thereby showing a favoritism toward the official story when it should be showing an impartial status. This isn't an NPoV toward the article. That is the contradiction within Snopes' external source. Other than that, the rennovations to the article looks much better than before. --mikecucuk 3:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Better picture please

The picture that's currently on the page is just some text and a huge black background. It's ugly and a waste of space.
I hope someone is willing to improve it. --ScWizard 23:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's the opening title from the first edition which makes it highly relevant. I do agree though that it's not particularly descriptive. Maybe another still frame from the film would be better? Or a pic of the authors? TehQ 18:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps this link is a better picture?[1] Anyways, as a user, I cannot edit the picture myself, but perhaps a consensus can be reached. If this one doesn't work, I can always find others. --mikecucuk 14:36, 20 March 2006 (EST)
have added the pic you suggested into the article (further down the page) for comparison. TehQ 00:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Loose_Change&oldid=44894761"