Template talk:911ct

This Template

While I appreciate that people want to create things on here, there is no reason to create multiple 9/11 CT templates on single pages, especially when each one has different information. It is confusing and misrepresentative. I urge you to either delete the old 9/11 CT template, or consider merging this one into that one and work on that one. We should not have 2 and certainly not 2 which both claim to be a way to navigate the info but with different links to the same apparent info. Again, I'm not trying to be rude, I just feel strongly that we don't need more than one template. bov 21:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

What would be logical here is to state explicitly the other templates you are referencing. Without that a discussion is hard. I will refer you to the logic that was used when this template was created here. Fiddle Faddle 21:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The templates serve two purposes. I personally like them both. It is not confusing at all and multiple templates are used in lots of articles. --Tbeatty 22:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

If they are not useful, people will choose not to use them. I think they are useful for navigating through related pages. Readers may not be sure exactly what they want, and this presents them with some related pages to consider. It also saves us from trying to keep in sync the 'See also' sections of related pages. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'll add a few more of my own templates that say what I want them to say to some other pages too. I didn't realize it was so easy to do on here. Thanks. bov 07:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be reading into this template something which is simply not present. It is NPOV, makes no comment, and is designed and intended simply as a navigation aid at the foot of relevant articles. It is an aid, no more and no less, to people who wish to navigate easily between articles. It is not designed to compete with any other template, nor to take the place of any other template. So far, apart from this one, there is no template which is suitable for all articles. Template:911tm, for example, is solely to do with the Truth Movement. Where an article is not a part of that movement then that template cannot be deployed, but this one is wholly appropriate, precisely because its intent is to gather all articles together.

It is by no means completely loaded with all relevant articles yet. How can it be? It is a work in progress, as is Wikipedia. Instead of spending your time removing it, why not take a different view and work to enhance or complete it? Fiddle Faddle 07:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Popular Culture

The (currently sole) article in the popular culture segment links to a mainstream TV series that takes on issues and tends to lampoon them. The show demonstrates that 9/11 CTs are in the popular culture. That it takes a view on them does not make it irrelevant here. The template is designed and intended to navigate to all articles under the umbrella without expressing any comment upon them.

If the CT is valid then it will prevail. If invalid then it will not. Robust theories withstand lampooning by TV shows. Fiddle Faddle 22:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• So do completely absurd ones, like the controlled demolition theory, Elvis being abducted by aliens, or the various Kennedy conspiracy theories. Lampooning is not an indicator of anything other than existence, espoecially it is not an indicator that the theories are in any way credible. Guy (Help!) 10:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with you completely :) Most, if not all, of the various theories and hypotheses are the products of minds who will not accept the simple answer, even when it stands up and bites them in the backside. Fiddle Faddle 11:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a proposal to change the title of this template

I am not yet sure what that proposal is, but I have asked the main objector to come here and discuss it. When we have a consensus we will know what to do. Fiddle Faddle 22:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I have asked many times that the main objector, Bov, comes here and builds a consensus. This is evident from his talk page. Instead he has devoted time to removal of the template, and, earlier today I was forced to put a vandalism warning in his talk page for his edit to the template that surgically removed two characters.

I believe most strongly that a consensus is the only route forward, and I reiterate the invitation to Bov to come forward and build one here. Fiddle Faddle 11:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

My apologies to everyone for all that rant. Could we please stop using this template until it's expanded or renamed? If you would prefer to use it as it is, then it should be named by its topic. Lovelight 22:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It is named by its topic. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I've examined all this a bit more; judging by the looks of it, this template is some sort of evil twin of the existing truth movement temp? I've noticed by your recent edit that you consider it to be conspiracy theory, but we need to discuss such terminology. One way or another we are discussing it everywhere. Alternative hypothesis, alternative theories … are all valid substitutes. I'm certain that we are all well aware of the etiquettes and this particular hypothesis doesn’t deserve such label (neither do fellow editors, prominent members, supporters…) Let me share another perspective, we can all easily agree that no one offered alternative explanation of the WTC 7 collapse. If we would pursue this down the road and with building 7 on the horizon, we would conclude that this is actually only plausible theory about collapse… Since there is nothing to confront it, it cannot be called conspiracy. So, quite seriously, I honestly think that this is excellent template for this particular (unquestionably significant) topic. If we were to rename it properly and stick it on main article it would be sight to behold, as it would certainly offer some, well needed balance (NPOV) there. Lovelight 00:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

summary

1. I'd really like reasonable explanation why would only plausible theory about collapse of WTC 7 be called conspiracy. On what basis? Reflecting what? Our personal opinions? Where is the kontrapunkte?

2. Why is this template in use if it's not finished? Wouldn’t you agree that its current form makes him nothing else but misnamed mirror image of existing template?

3. Anyone can easily anticipate inclusively exclusive difficulties in future expansion (I'm anticipating this because of the comments)…

& Why is the proposal to name the (useful) template by its (only) subject such outrageous notion?

1. Even if it were the only plausible theory for the collapse of WTC 7, it still involves a conspiracy. Hence it's a conspiracy theory.
2. {{911tm}} (misnamed, in my opinion) is also up for deletion, but this template sits unobtrusively at the end as if it were a collection of "See Also" links. {{911tm}} takes up unreal estate (screen space) which could probably better be used for article text.
3. Most problems involving future expansion could be resolved by "hiding" the relevant lines that one wouldn't want expanded. I see no other problems other than vandalism (removing relevant listings, and inserting irrelevant ones) by User:Bov and attempted repurposing by User:Bov, Nuclear, and yourself. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
4. The individuals and groups propose other conspiracy theories — Controlled demolition is merely the only one with an article. In fact, Scholars for 9/11 Truth is apparently coming down in favor of death rays.

— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

1. I fail to see the logic? Please elaborate.
2. We obviously have deeply polarized opinions, and I'm afraid we will have to seek some middle ground.
3. Most problems with expansion cannot be solved, for example if scholars turn to death ray, it will exclude the others and vice versa and it can only lead to disputes, hide and seek and other heavy intercourses. Not sure if we really wont that? & I'm not sure why you had to call names?
4. As stated, there is no need for this if it is not expanded, why is there such urge to stick it?

Lovelight 23:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It appears I misunderstood you. Nuclear, gave a plausible explanation that you wanted to create a 9/11 controlled demolition template. That may be a worthy cause, but hijacking a perfectly respectable conspiracy theory template for that purpose is questionable. As for specifics (not referring to existing numbers, because you're giving the same reply in more than one number)

The only theory with a Wikipedia article is the controlled demolition theory. However, the individuals and groups named in the template may propose different theories. If you don't remove those individuals, groups, and media which support other theories than controlled demolition within the next 12 hours, I'll restore the conspiracy theory template in its original form.

The template is perfectly fine in the conspiracy theory form, or as reduced by removing other entries in the controlled demolition form. Alternatively, the real conspiracy theory template might include the controlled demolition template. There is no need for expansion, unless other articles are proposed.

— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Not only that you've misunderstood me, but you've also forced me into unnecessary reversions although I've politely (and repeatedly) asked you to see the point(s!) of discussion. I'll take that the unnecessary removal of "well referenced reference" from haarp article was done in affect? And since you're calling names again, please understand that I've engaged into this very recently, and only because I've noticed that you folks are talking about one thing, while clearly having another. With nothing but good intentions I'd suggest you cool down a bit.., I mean, hijacking templates? - If template needs to be cleaned, so be it, I'm not the one who build it… Well, I'm glad that you agree on proposed name change, however, the purpose of this lengthy (and mostly unnecessary discussion) is proper name for template, and proper title is: Controlled demolition hypothesis… but this is minor issue, and I'll agree with you: "The template is perfectly fine in the controlled demolition form." As for who will do the formatting and trimming, don’t know, I've already had enough fun for a whole week. Lovelight 00:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be better to have an overall conspiracy theory template, with controlled demolition as a sub-template, but I'm afraid this needs to be deleted and restarted. There's too much bad blood here. (And the H A A R P post seems to be a blog entry, not a WP:RS or even allowable under WP:EL. I did follow your edits around to see if I could get some insight into your position from your edits, as your arguments didn't seem to make much sense.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm having a hard time with interpretation of some of your thoughts too, for example I'm not sure what's on your mind with this questioning of my position? I have no position; it’s a sort of eccentric orbit, would it help if I'd stick a few boxes on my talkpage? Such which would identify me as true neutral character… or whatever? I'm also well aware of our impact on outside world… but never mind all that. One of my first remarks was about the logical flaw in the template. I've also stated that I don't care much about it and I still don't, however it has become clear that, once properly named, this template serves as good navigational tool. If bad blood implies our little incident, you said yourself it was a misunderstanding and there is always room for reconciliation. You've also said: "9/11 controlled demolition template… may be a worthy cause." And I agree on that. Do as you wish… Lovelight 01:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

If this page was perfectly reasonable, it would not be up for deletion with half the people thinking its not perfectly reasonable. While those other individuals may propose other theories, they are not all on Wikipedia for their theories, to claim the theory has weight and is notable because the person is, would mean you should write an article on it and defend that article right? I guess you could easily remove people who do not fall in line with controlled demolition, however you run the risk of removing people who may have their own theory, but also support controlled demolition, so please be careful when doing so. For instance a source stating they do not believe it would be a good way to remove the basic people. --NuclearZer0 23:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

If there's no source saying they support "controlled demolition", they must be removed. You've got basic Wikipedia policy backwards, again. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Design considerations

While awaiting the proposal, here are the design considerations. These will assist when reaching a consensus on the wording within the template:

1. Be a simple, foot of the page, navigational template
2. Be inclusive. Allow all articles which are conspiracy theories and hypotheses to be linked
3. Be suitable for inclusion on any article about a proponent of, or a supporter of one or any of the conspiracy theories, whatever their other interests or reputations
4. Be NPOV in deployment. It is recognised that a template itself can imbue POV to an article.
5. Not be mutually exclusive with other templates
6. Neither validate nor invalidate the conspiracy theories
7. Include popular culture insofar as it acknowledges the theories, whether in favour or against.

I may have been the main creator of this template, but I am not emotionally committed to anything except improving it, both in content and in deployment. I simply created it, opened it for comment, accepted those comments and then deployed it. Fiddle Faddle 23:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Be suitable for inclusion on any article about a proponent of, or a supporter of one or any of the conspiracy theories, whatever their other interests or reputations

Isn't it interesting how a CT nav template must include ALL ideas and proponents no matter what relevance or background or even absurdity, while non-CT templates would have criteria for inclusion? This is called discrediting by association and functions to mix nonsense - space weapons, nukes, holograms, UFOs - with the real work - scientific experiments of the evidence - to dilute the real work and discredit it. Not too difficult to understand, is it? 152.131.10.133 22:41, 17 January 2007 o(UTC)

What would be more constructive is to make a positive and helpful suggestion. A template that connects the full portfolio ranging frm lamebrains to intelligentsia, from ludicrous concepts to potentially justifiable research is perfectly valid Fiddle Faddle 23:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the solution, but it is worth recognizing that frequently the distinction is blurred, in both directions, to distort issues of credibility. I would suggest that conspiracy theory requires some element of unfounded speculation and would exclude the (few) cases of questions genuinely unanswered. Peter Grey 00:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the heading lines could solve that. Some judicious rewording there should please the majority of proponents and opponents of "non mainstream arguments". After all, nothing is set in stone. Fiddle Faddle 00:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

As for helpful suggestions, don't include the hoaxes and the trashing of the questions, as you do now. Meyssan and the Pentagon missile are old news and no longer promoted. The Urinal episode is derogatory towards those questioning the truth, however much you may consider it necessary to have a "pop culture" area to wedge it in there. Does the September 11th navigation box include a pop culture interpretation of its theories, or pop culture trashings of the viewpoints of the government? Nope. Why? Because promoting cartoons that trash the content (or are considered debatable on the issue of whether they support or trash) isn't supportive of the content. Just because 9/11 truth is mentioned someplace, doesn't make that source a relevant "source", it makes it so that more people can see how another corporate media venue trashes those who question. If people disagree on it, it shouldn't be on there. This is what Tom Harrison has learned on here, that he can insert anything that trashes the 9/11 truth movement as long as it says the words "conspiracy theory" in it. This is how the trashing is already done on here all over the place, so why perpetuate it? Remove the old hoaxes and the mainstream trashings. Step one. bov 01:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but you don't get to choose a "favorable" rendition of the "Truth Movement". It is what it is, since it is a loosely defined conglomeration of persons and groups. It includes all takers, everything from your favored theory to the ones you dismiss. You don't get to determine what is relevant or irrelevant. If a source describes a person or a theory as part of the movement, then it's in. Further, if we remove all of the hoaxes as you request, there wouldn't be a single mention of the movement or theories anywhere in Wikipedia. Morton Devonshire^Yo 01:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

This isn't 911tm ... --NuclearZer0 23:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see any difference between an old hoax and a new one - both are paranoia-driven fantasy, and both have been refuted. On the other hand, a South Park parody of conspiracy theories is, obviously, not itself a promotion of conspiracy theory. Peter Grey 01:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The connection between conspiracy theory and popular culture is important. It is one of the main areas of academic research, as in Mark Fenster's work. Conspiracy theories are of interest as sociological phenomena. They are things people believe, and that is/should be how we write about them. The section on popular culture should be expanded, if not in the template then in the relevent articles.

Certainly Meyssan's work and the influence it has had are important and need to be presented.

Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

South Park

Until someone starts adding aouth park episodes to the Holocaust article I will remove the south part episode from this one. This is a template not for anything that has ever contained a joke, bit, comment, or article regarding 9/11 conspiracies. It is to guide readers toward connecting articles of relevance, since South Park hitler episodes do not appear on the Holocaust article, I am sure the point is understood. --NuclearZer0 14:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it woudl be preferred that you build a consensus for that action. The logic you use is interesting, but I do not see the comparison. The South Park article is an example of how the conspiracy stuff has entered the public consciousness, and thus is valid. I oppose your action. Fiddle Faddle 14:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Your opposition is noted, however since you have not refuted my statement, that is also noted. --NuclearZer0 14:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't really see a statement to refute except with a general opposition. I'm glad you are seeking to build a consensus for your intended action. Fiddle Faddle 14:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

More consensus-building here. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I see the anon, Bov and myself opposing what you Tom and Morton favor. I do not see concensus for its addition. --NuclearZer0 14:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Nuclear, there is no place on the template for the pop culture ref. and it is inconsistent with other templates on wikipedia. There was a call for building consensus, but now that there is some, it is ignored. Who'd have guessed? bov 19:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see consensus for its removal, either. As bov opposes the existence of this template, I don't see his opinions as necessarily having the weight required to indicate that there isn't consensus for its addition. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

As you argued fo ronthe September 11th page, concensus to add, not remove. --NuclearZer0 23:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It's an example of how it has entered the popular consciousness. It is not, however, an individually significant case of it; it's just Yet Another Thing Vaguely Related. Adding it to the template, with its own header and so on, just makes it look disproportionately important and suggests there is some deep hidden significance to the target article that simply isn't there. Shimgray | talk | 18:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not its own header, or at least it's not meant to be; it's the header for Popular culture. It's an important part of conspiracy theory and a subject of academic study. It should stay, and be expanded. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Shimgray, since there are no other pop culture references in the article it looks as though it has a larger then needed importance and should be removed until such a section can be fully fleshed out. --NuclearZer0 11:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

the expansion

I just want to express thanks to NuclearZero (sp?) for the major expansion. Looking good. Fiddle Faddle 16:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I've just finished adding the template to the extra articles that NuclearZero added. Fiddle Faddle 18:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Capitalisation

It's a nice template, but What's With All The Caps? --Guinnog 16:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Details! Feel free to "Wikify" Fiddle Faddle 17:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

This template is currently nominated for deletion

Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:911ct here for the moved deletion discussion and make whatever comments you wish Fiddle Faddle 23:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy vs. Alternative

The template is named 911ct (for conspiracy theory). If someone wants to create a 911at (alternative theory) template, I have little objection. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I see no difficulty with that at all. I foresee the same issues that we have here, but with different players, however. We do not need at present to relabel the template (the {{911ct}} name, I mean. We can simply run with the different name within the template. Fiddle Faddle 07:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree I dont see the problem with having it say "alternate theory", there are things like article renames and redirects here on Wikipedia that you may want to read up on Arthur Rubin, it doesnt cause mass confusion or trouble, especially since the template is inserted into articles, people will not even see the name. If you need more information on page redirects or renames, please let me know. --NuclearZer0 11:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Changing it from "conspiracy theory" to "alternative theory" changes the entire meaning of the template. (I feel "alternative" is incorrect, but that's another matter.) I consider it effectively vandalism of the articles the template is included in, whether or not that was the intent. Perhaps the templates should be deleted if we can't reach agreement as to what should be the subject of the template. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Far better to reach agreement. Fiddle Faddle 15:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice. So would peace in the Middle East. I'm not sure which is more probable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I suppose suggestng that the middle east problems be deleted after a debate is out of the question? But, rather more seriously, reaching a consensus requires that people are willing to reach one, or at least to open negotiations. I am losing count of the number of times I have invited the prime reverter of the deployment of this template to the table to reach a consensus and the invitation has been ignored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timtrent (talk • contribs) 15:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I think if Arthur Rubin is gonig to refuse to discuss at all a middle ground, then it should be noted his objections and refusals, and the discussion should proceed. I am not sure how alternate theories can be "wrong" when they are not the accepted version, they are clearly an alternate being offered. --NuclearZer0 20:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the vandalism. Especially since the title reads "Part of a series on 9/11 conspiracy theories" and "series" links to the true content of the template:"Alternative theories of the September 11 attacks"--189.121.183.72 (talk) 02:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The name of the top-level page is 9/11 conspiracy theories. Renaming that has been discussed at length. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes lucky we always have the option to rediscuss. Care to add your comments to the current discussion?--NuclearZer0 21:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

When has anyone proposed a middle ground?

They are all conspiracy theories, in fact, as they all require government and/or mainstream news media conspiracies in order to "suppress" the "facts". — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

They are alternate theories, hence why they are alternate to the main. Sorry but since you refuse to budge I will note that fact and your refusal to even look at a middle ground and move on to discussing it with others. --NuclearZer0 11:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

They are defineately not all conspiracy theories. Take, for example, the 9/11 advance-knowledge debate and 9/11 opinion polls articles.--189.121.183.72 (talk) 02:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

CT (conspiracy) vs AT (alternate) vs CD (controlled demolition)

I created a new section because my comments in the section above have been refactored by NuclearZer0 sufficiently to change the meaning, which he denied. I consider the section above no longer necessarily indicative of what I said.

He's now refactored my new comment, removing the heading, which, again, changed the meaning. So I re-added it as a subsection. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

There's little similarity between what the templates should be. Please work on the AT (although that's just a POV fork) and CD templates as separate templates, and we'll see which, if any of them, are to be kept.

1. AT is just not the term used by the mainstream media, which is what we should be doing.
2. A separate CD template would be acceptable, but so is this one as written. In particular, a CD template
   1. Should still be in the "conspiracy theory" and "alternative theory" categories.
   2. Should not have the "Theories" field, as it's moved to the template title (not article title)
   3. Should not have various people who do not agree with the CD theory.

Please work on the page separately than the work on this (CT) page, so we can keep track of which articles belong in which template. (And please do not refactor my comments in a way that changes their meaning.)

— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Please keep all discussions in one place. There is no need to create new sections everytime you post. There is also a Wikipage on refactoring talk pages you seem to need o look at. I will try to find the link for you. --NuclearZer0 15:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure about other groups... guess US Government is out of the question… NIST, Popular mechanics? Please, chip in…. Lovelight 21:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

You added a number of articles that describe theories which are not conspiracy theories. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It is rather a shame, but it appears that not all of the edits are necessarily in good faith. However, appearances can be deceptive. It may be that Lovelight simply misunderstands the topic the template shoidl contain. Fiddle Faddle 23:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course that appearance can be deceiving, and of course that you are shooting way of the target. Let me reformulate by our own words:

"Whether or not a particular conspiracy allegation may be impartially or neutrally labeled a conspiracy theory is subject to some controversy. Conspiracy theory has become a highly charged political term, and the broad critique of 'conspiracy theorists' by academics, politicians, psychologists, and the media cuts across traditional left-right political lines."

But I'm not sure if I have a will to pursue this further, since reasons are obvious, yet, for some reason you folks choose not to listen. If there is a consensus on conspiracy, then so be it. As some sort of misfortunate typo, this little product is subliminal fodder, a table whose contest is dismissed by the title. This definitely isn't about good and evil, but this is ill intended little crap (and you keep talking about good faith???). I honestly wish those prominent members of our society would sue us for labeling them with no valid arguments whatsoever. Does this make my perspective a bit more clearer, not to mention that it's hard to keep good manners if we are to play silly and childish games… Lovelight 03:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit wars

There are no arguments presented here that it should be "Alternative Theories". I'm not going to consider it such, but an uninvolved admin might consider those changes vandalism unless discussed. bov and NuclearZer0 seem to be well aware of this page, and should present any arguments they may have to support "alternative theories" on this talk page. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that I oppose the parody site being there, also, but as any change at this point (other than the addition of a completely unrelated article) would be a reversion, I cannot make the change myself. If one of the enemies of conspiracy would remove that section alone, it would be appreciated. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

"Enemies of conspiracy" who is this? Anyway I am sorry you see enforcing a concensus to be vandalism and have announced that you will violate Wiki policy by discussing things with your fellow editors. --NuclearZer0 11:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I should have said enemies of (the word) "conspiracy". There is clearly no concensus for "alternative" at this time, as you and bov are the only editors who have expressed approval in these talk pages. There has also been no "middle ground" proposed. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is the purpose of this template? If it is to serve any, then it should be placed on main 911 article, and/or main 911 article should be placed on this template, right? You've probably noticed that I'm a bit reluctant to get into fiery discussion about terminology, since "official account" of events is called conspiracy by so many. Well, after given it some thought, I'd go for alternative (for it gives us valid base to add main article to this template). However, there is also room for middle ground here, as well as somewhat different direction; if we would refer to these "alternative theories" as to "independent investigations" (there is actually WWW consensus on this) we would come much closer to NPOV terminology. I'm pointing this out because the template is obviously focused on controlled demolition hypotheses (I've quick scanned the article and find no reference to any form of conspiracy there). Anyway, try to take a look at the template and see it as: Independent investigations, hypotheses, proponents & supporters, and popular culture… If you would kindly share your thoughts. Lovelight 15:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You asked about the purpose. That is set out in part in Template_talk:911ct#Design_considerations above. The overall purpose is to be wholly inclusive. I see your point that the sole theory/hypothesis included so far is the CDH, but that is a thing that time can cure with ease. You could, if you choose, cure that yourself. Death rays and other amusing oddities are perfectly includable. They just have not been so far. Fiddle Faddle 18:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope, it should be clear by now that I don't appreciate mixture of "nonsense" and science. If you would implement death rays in same template in which is this particular hypothesis I'd have to fight that vigorously. Lovelight 18:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Some of us think that the controlled demolition theory is disproved by the observations, so that it is as credible as "death rays". (Or at least terawatt IR lasers — also disproved by the observations, but just as scientific.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what to say, perhaps some of you should go back to classroom?;P Lovelight 19:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

A Lexis-Nexis search of news articles finds 202 results for "9/11" + "alternative theories"; searching "9/11" + "conspiracy theories" yields 5,167 results. "Conspiracy theory" is by far the most common term used to describe these theories. We are required to use the most common term. --Aude (talk) 16:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Aude, good to see you again, as noted above, this template is based on hypothesis, not conspiracies. Lovelight 16:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

PS. As a matter of fact, it appears to be very precise, very singular topic/template. Lovelight 16:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

"Alternative hypothesis" is not used by the news media. Only found one instance of its use- in a quote by Steven E. Jones. We must use the most common term -- "9/11 conspiracy theories". --Aude (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, we are not talking about "Alternative hypothesis", nor "Conspiracy theories", we are talking about "Controlled demolition hypothesis" (very precise, singular, not plural). Lovelight 16:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we are talking about 9/11 conspiracy theories. There are theories involving controlled demolition; theories involving Jews; and others involving space-based energy weapons, lizard men from another dimension, and holographic planes. They have a page: 9/11 conspiracy theories. They have a number of sub-pages (all of which now have 'nofollow' in the links, praise Jimbo). Wikipedia includes such an extensive body of material on these conspiracy theories that the average reader would find this navigation template helpful. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

No, as it stands now this is singular issue, you may even call it a flaw in the template… if you won't to name it as "conspiracy template", it needs to be expanded. As it is, the only proper title would be: "Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center". As for nephites, lizards, snakes, and death rays from other dimension, you're really pushing it of the topic Tom;). It is something I'd sooner expect from Devonshire lineage… Lovelight 17:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you underestimate, or at least understate, the popularity of David Icke. Most of 9/11 conspiracy theory is right in line with the rest of western conspiracy theory, going back to the 1820s at least. Until a few years ago, most conspiracy theories had been coming from the right; now the left is joining in, as with the New antisemitism. Now that I think of it, that might be another page to include in the template. I don't know what Morton's lineage has to do with anything. I hope you don't subscribe to that 'Illumniati bloodlines' nonsense. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your thoughts, but all that has nothing to do with freefall, and domino effects and PNAC (which is, as you are well aware of, fascism by the very definition of it) "freedom agenda" and so on... Those who orchestrated event of this magnitude should have been aware of Butterfly Effect and I'm not about to guess where will we end up from initial condition. Judging by the unfolding history it will simply blowback - as it always does. Well, let us leave quantum mechanics, metaphysics and bloodlines (simply had to poke you with that one;) for some other time. It's more of a topic we could enjoy while drinking fine vino in front of the fireplace. Now, about the template, this singular issue could easily be most important of them all, and there might be some fortuna in all this, since the hypothesis doesn’t (emphasis added) belong to the realm of conspiracy. Perhaps we should seek a consensus and implement it for what it is? I certainly hope that you are not one of those who is eating pancakes and defying gravity? Lovelight 18:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how you could seriously argue that 'controlled demolition' is not part of the larger pantheon of 9/11 conspiracy theories. If it has developed an elevated status, it certainly hasn't in the reputable press, where it is indeed lumped-in with David Icke's people, and that's our measuring stick. Oh, and to speak my name as if it were a 'swear word'; I am shocked! Morton Devonshire^Yo 02:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hola Morton, remember how u used to greet the visitors on your talk page? Guess you learned some decency since our last encounter… About your point, I'm sorry, but while I find your contribution to Wiki rather amusing, such nonchalant approach does discredit your work and it's hard for me to take you seriously. Your arguments and reflections about such important issues as this one are nothing but derogatory and/or libelous, which is needless to say such POV that would (under normal conditions and in normal work environment) force you to exclude yourself from most of discussions. As for this (repeating) insertions of David Icke (who is btw somewhat marginal, although dramatis persona here in Europa, since his lectures are basically gatherings of fascist, and that is more than reason enough to simply avoid any deeper study of his work, well, at least from my perspective…) if you would kindly cut the crap? That is, are we talking about template which deals with inconsistencies of 911 events, or are we talking about general conspiracy template for every single nonsense that floats out there? As stated before, and as it stands now this is singular topic template, I'd use it as such along with already established name (apparently some sort of consensus was already reached, since article acknowledges hypothesis, not a conspiracy), imo it would improve our encyclopedia. However, I'm not about to fight this, nor I care deeply about this particular draft since "agenda" behind it does seem a bit fuzzy. One thing is certain though, if you are about to mix science with fiction, we'll cross our (s)words. Shalom! Lovelight 16:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Aleichem shalom, my friend Che. But you misunderstand me -- the fact that anybody on Wikipedia makes distinctions between 'nonsense conspiracy theories' and 'established conspiracy theories' is of no import. Reputable sources make no such distinction, and since we are bound not by what we decide here but by what they say there, we are not permitted to make those distinctions -- to do otherwise would be to engage in synthesis/original research. Morton Devonshire^Yo 02:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

More humor? Some sort of labeling? None of these researchers deserve to hear that word from you. I've told you once how I find it all very amusing. Let me explain, apparently, you are viciously insulting a vast amount of people the very moment you strike the keyboard and type conspiracy. I wasn’t kidding before, do you honestly think that you can contribute to this discussion when your user page is pure pattern of very reason we are having this dispute? You my friend are redefining the very meaning of the term POV, leading it where no POV has been before. Lovelight 02:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You're still not addressing the point. Morton Devonshire^Yo 15:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

There's a follow up↑. Lovelight 15:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It's merely advocacy for your position that one set of theories is more 'reasonable' than another set -- if you want to advocate, do it off-Wiki. There's no place for original research here on the Wiki -- our rules don't permit that. Morton Devonshire^Yo 17:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Glass houses and all. Have you seen your own userpage? --NuclearZer0 18:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOR applies to articles. Get over 'it', whatever 'it' is, please. Morton Devonshire^Yo 19:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You mean templates because this isnt an article, still dont get why you are arguing NOR. You made a statement that "Reputable sources make no such distinction," when addressing the difference in conspiracy theories is quite the case of NOR, care to cite your source where they do not? I am anxious to see it. I hope you are not running around making statements then asking others not to violate NOR when they say you are wrong. --NuclearZer0 23:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

As I said, your bias prevents you to judge this properly, if you could, then you wouldn’t portray my arguments as advocacy, while thinking about my proposal as some form of conspiracy. I'm not trying to bite or anything, I've told you that I find all that amusing, however, your position is self declared. I've made more than one point in effort to illustrate why this template's current caption is flawed. One could argue that part of it is based on such (hopefully unnecessary WP's as WP Ethics) but there are also some purely logical, technical flaws. Lovelight 18:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

My personal feelings don't impact our rules at WP:RS & WP:NOR, which you still have to follow, and you still don't understand that they apply to your attempted distinction between 9/11 conspiracy theories. Morton Devonshire^Yo 19:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Just check the design notes, every single one is violated. As it is, this template refers to only one event (it's not inclusive), and one single article. Article which is correctly named, did those researches called their own thesis conspiracies? They haven't, so what kind of authority we have here? What gives us right to label them with such label? To who are you referring while seeking reputable sources? Give me just one sample of good reputable source (except this hypothesis) which will explain descend of WTC 7. One. If you would like to associate template with conspiracy theories you'll need to expand it by your own design lines. Until then, there is no reason for its distribution. You cannot go around with such draft. Lovelight 19:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

If this were the 'controlled demolition' template you might have a point. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Templates can be renamed, if the template is found to be covering only one topic it could easily be renamed to match that. I am sure you already know about page renames however. --NuclearZer0 21:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Good faith edits are never vandalism.

As the title of this section says, good faith edits are never vandalism. I see in at least one edit summary here that an accusation of vandalism is being used. Please see WP:CIVIL and use better judgment when referring to other editors. Thanks. RxS 16:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

My apologies on using rollback to revert apparently good faith edits, even if their edit summary was rv vandalism. It should only be used against vandalism. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

My vote for deletion was based on good faith.., so if you could kindly explain where exactly is good faith in labeling this people (and this particular hypothesis)... no need to repeat other arguments. Look, we are unnecessarily pushing our own POV's, thus violating fundamental principles of encyclopedia. Why is that? Does the word hypothesis imply truth or conspiracy? No it does not, is it some sort of proof? No, it’s a hypothesis and it's perfectly ok for anyone, because it carries no unnecessary weight, its perfect wording. We are all aware of public opinions, so what are we doing? Spinning? That's the job of mainstream media… I've pointed numerous reasons why this cannot be distributed as it is, your continued insertions and insisting on conspiracies is as conspiratorial as vandalusian. We have this middle ground, yet you folks feel the need to present your POV's and label it with Morton's nonsense? As I stated before, this is utter violation of NPOV and utter failure to assume good faith. I'll continue to rename our template until we define alternative terminology. Alternativly remove it from "distribution", until its finished, of course. Lovelight 17:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

No "middle ground" has been proposed. If you want to work on a separate Template:911cd, there would be no objection, but this template is perfectly well-defined, in spite of disruption. Repurposing to "controlled demolition" is repurposing, not a "middle ground". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs) 18:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

Please try to remember to sign your posts so people know who is replying. Thank you. --NuclearZer0 18:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I noticed I hadn't signed, but HagermanBot got to it before I could go back and sign. He seems to be hitting edits within a couple seconds. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Now the TfD is over let us settle this template's form and function

Please can we bring this insanity over reverting and re-reverting to an end. If the objective is that one "party" changes it so often that the other party ceases to care, rolls over and plays dead, that is not going to happen. One logical outcome of this is that the template gets protected until this is resolved. That will please neither set of opinions, it is always protected in the "wrong version" after all. Nonetheless I am content to ask for full protection until this is resolved, if necessary.

I suggest the following course of action:

1. Reasoned statements under the "headings" which will be "Alternate" and "Conspiracy" unless another viewpoint comes to the fore. Note that I mean answer in the usual manner with Alternate or Conspiracy starting your statement
2. Acknowledgement that this is not a ballot, but a consensus building exercise, and that the statements require proper rationale. A one word statement is not a statement in this context, nor is a throwaway line.
3. Invitation of a disinterested and experienced editor who has not edited in the articles affected by the template and who expresses impartiality in this to close the consensus after a period of 5 days.
4. Agreement, as if we need it because this is Wikipedia, to be bound by that consensus whether we agree with it personally or not.

Now we could spend our lives discussing whether this is the right approach, or we could simply get on with editing this encyclopaedia.

If this is acceptable as a proposal, please let the discussions start. Note that "vote packing" is not effective here. Reasoned and signed entries from people are required. Fiddle Faddle 22:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I have placed a request on the village pump for partial and impartial editors alike to come here and assist with consensus building. My concern here is not, as NuclearZer0 states below to have a straw poll, but to build a correct consensus. Should the consensus go against my own view, so be it. We are bound to act within the consensus of this community, and so this process will, assuming a consensus can be reached, be binding upon us all. I see every reason for any editor to ask in an impartial manner any balanced group of editors to come here and offer contributions. The matter is important enough to have asked for protection of the template in whatever random state it happened to be in when protected, and I cannot see any editor going against consensus when it is cfeated, whichever direction the consensus goes in. Fiddle Faddle 12:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy

• Conspiracy. I choose conspiracy because that is the term in popular parlance for any such theory or hypothesis. I believe that the various theories and hypotheses are pseudo-scientific speculation into areas where Occam's Razor suggests that the simplest and most obvious solution tends to be the right one, and that granting them the status of Alternate elevates them to have an equal footing with the rational and scientifically accepted explanation. I do not propose to go into the pedantic arguments against the pseudo-science, preferring to leave that entirely to the various citations in the articles covered by this template. Fiddle Faddle 01:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• 'Alternate' implies some kind of free choice between mutually exclusive options, and the conspiracy theories, at least those premised on the "controlled" demolition folklore, cannot reasonably be compared with the actual events. Peter Grey 04:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• I choose conspiracy because the phrase "alternate hypothesis" is not used in mainstream media, is not readily understood (unless, of course, we were to add a full description of what it means in the template), and is not generally used except by people who believe one of the alternate theories. "Alternate" (or "alternative") to what? Everybody knows what "conspiracy theory" means in this context, even if they think it's the wrong word. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• A search of news articles on Lexis Nexis finds 202 results for "9/11" + "alternative theories"; searching "9/11" + "conspiracy theories" yields 5,167 results. "Conspiracy theory" is by far the most common term used by reliable sources to describe these theories. We are required to use the most common term. --Aude (talk) 15:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• After a quick look at the articles in question, I have to go with "Conspiracy". If there is one thing that all of these articles have in common it is that they discuss the belief that someone (be it Larry Silverstein, "The Government", The CIA, Men From Mars, or whoever) conspired to bring these buildings down or to cover up important information. That is the definition of a conspiracy theory. An "Alternative" would involve something else... An alternative theory would hypothisize a reason for the collapse that did not involve a conspiracy. A theory that claimed the buildings fell due to faulty concrete would be an "Alternative Theory". Theories that claimed the buildings fell due to mounting oscilations caused by the Airliners crashing into them, or that there was an earthquake that coinsided with the event would be "Alternatives". But as soon as you mention a conspiracy... it becomes a "Conspiracy Theory". Blueboar 15:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Preponderance of sources use this term. Indeed, using the alternate would be closer to original research. Linguistic and logical imprecisions should not trump Wikipedia:Naming conventions. Cool Hand Luke 17:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Conspiracy theory is a legitimate area of academic research; the reliable sources call them conspiracy theories; they are conspiracy theories; the main article is 9/11 conspiracy theories. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Conspiracy theories exist. These articles have one thing in common: they discuss conspiracy theories. Reliable sources call them conspiracy theories. Newsflash: spade called a spade on Wikipedia, film at 11. Weregerbil 16:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Conspiracy theories it is. That's what they are, that's what the sources call them. The only people who don't use the term conspiracy theory are the conspiracy theorists, and the only reason they don't use it is because they want to imply that the theories have some kind of credibility. Guy (Help!) 17:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support, all of these theories are predicated on the concept that the "official version of events" is wrong and there is a coverup to hide that fact. That = conspiracy...--Isotope23 21:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Conspiracy, it's the accepted term in general usage...to the point where it's almost generic term that has a meaning onto itself. And in anycase, claims of traces of thermite and molten steel imply a conspiracy. RxS 02:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Conspiracy theories are what they are. See WP:Weasel <<-armon->> 04:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Alternative

• I'd go for alternative. As we elaborated in our article about conspiracy theories: "Conspiracy theory has become a highly charged political term, and the broad critique of 'conspiracy theorists' by academics, politicians, psychologists, and the media cuts across traditional left-right political lines." Therefore, alternative wording is the only way to maintain npov on this issue. To illustrate, there are no other explanations about collapse of WTC 7, as Arthur pointed out, there is nothing in official lines or mainstream to serve as kontrapukt to this. So far, only plausible, and only scientific explanation of WTC7 collapse is hypothesis for which you are suggesting it should be called conspiracy, because you (obviously) hold such personal POV. Let me remind you that this particular hypothesis has nothing to do with conspiracy. It is not secret and/or deceptive plot by some covert alliance of powerful or influential people or organizations. It's a simple voice of academic communities (its vox populi). I could (and if needed, will go) further, but to keep things simple... in this particular case, conspiracy is purely POV term (as our recent warring showed so clearly) and it goes against fundamental principles of our encyclopedia. Lovelight 09:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Alternate per Lovelight, I want to point out that a straw poll will not end this I am sure. I do not think anyone is going to read the others side and be convinced. For example the article on conspiracy theories points out that the term is often used to degrade or malign, yet I am sure those who want conspiracy theory will not even address that issue or care that the article on Wikipedia says its POV. While i commend the attempt, you have to have people who are willing to waiver for a straw poll to accomplish much, since straw polls cannot form consensus and further because this straw poll was not created under the correct guidelines, meaning everyone didnt come together to form it neutrally. And to address Arthur Rubin stating its best because its used most often. I direct you to the Osama Bin Laden article, where he is not called a terrorist, though its the term most used. The reason for this is Wikipedia's policy on NPOV and the negative implication of being a terrorist. Much like our own article here notes the negative implication of calling people "conspiracy theorists". --NuclearZer0 11:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support - I havn't been involved in these discussions - so I'm coming at it fresh - but I confess that I believe that most (if not all) of these theories are crazy - so I'm not a neutral party in that sense. However, it's very clear to me that "Conspiracy Theories" is the wrong title for the template. My strong belief is that it's not the task of a navigational template to convey any information beyond the links to the articles it points at. Think about this for a moment. We'd want to be able to put very rational, completely believable 'other' theories into this template if such things ever came to light - and calling it "Conspiracy Theories" definitely precludes that. If you went that way, you'd have to have two navigational templates - one for "good" theories and a different one for "conspiracy" theories. But then you get into a whole world of hurt because you'd need to supply references within each template to back up the 'fact' that the template is referencing in claiming that one theory is crazy and the other one is good. Remember that Wikipedia is not itself considered to be a reference source that you can quote - so even if the articles themselves say "Here is a theory - it's ridiculous" or "Here is a theory - this is plausible", the template cannot rely on that. If the template expresses any kind of 'fact' whatever, then that fact needs to be referenced right there in the template. Since we don't want to do that (because this is just for navigation) - we have to avoid having the template distinguish between 'good' and 'bad' theories - that means you can't have two template and that means that the single, existing template needs a neutral name. But anyway, you know full well that if you want consensus, you aren't going to get it by labelling the opposing side as a bunch of crazies - and the modern colloquial meaning of terms like "Conspiracy Theory" and "Urban Legend" is most definitely to suggest that the proponents of those theories are nut-jobs. So - change the title of this mere navigational tool to "Alternative Theories" - then fight your battles where they need to be fought...down in each individual article. Down in those articles, demand references - don't let a single "fact" slip by without one. Ensure that WP:NOR and WP:NPOV are rigerously enforced. But don't get into a big bust-up about a mere navigational tool - you have better things to do with your time. SteveBaker 15:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support - I also believe the use of the word "alternative" is the only way to maintain npov on this issue. I think NuclearZer0 brings up a good example when he says:

I direct you to the Osama Bin Laden article, where he is not called a terrorist, though its the term most used. The reason for this is Wikipedia's policy on NPOV and the negative implication of being a terrorist. Much like our own article here notes the negative implication of calling people "conspiracy theorists".

It's important to note that on wikipedia, different rules apply to 9/11 than to other areas. You see it over and over again. For example, the article on the Holocaust contains about 15,600 words, of which approximately 425 are devoted to Holocaust Denial, which has its own section. This is about 2.7% of the page. In contrast, the September 11, 2001 attacks page has about 8,380 words, of which only 75 are devoted to the "conspiracy theories," and they are lumped into a section on "reactions." This is less than 1%. Yet far more than 1% of the US public questions the official reports. So polls conducted of the opinion of the US public on the events of 9/11 are completely ignored on here as far as representation on the main September 11th pages.

Additionally, of course, we are all engaged in an information war -- those who want to enforce the ubiqitous labelling and branding of "conspiracy theorist" everywhere on here need challenges of the official story to disappear. As we all know, the best way to turn people against a subject is to frame it in a way which will repulse them. That's the final goal here with the use of labels - regardless of individual intention - and the "branding" of anyone who sees that the parts of the story don't add up and feels the need to speak out about it using their expertise, to turn people away from questioning. A person who has spent his career as a physicist at a US accredited university, is reduced on wikipedia to only a "conspiracy theorist" when he applies those decades of expertise to a physical event which was political in nature. He is no longer a person of value to society, but a nutcase. I'm sorry, but that's pathetic. bov 23:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, that is pathetic - so pathetic that they fired him for it. But let me draw your attention to the articles linked in this template - far form only having 75 words on 9/11 conspiracy theories, we have many thousands of words on them. Vastly more than can be justified by the objective merit of the theories themselves. Guy (Help!) 17:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Should be called alternative I think.I dont believe this even requires an explanation. Its my opinion.Its an alternative, especially with the GAPING holes in the investigations following. Fethroesforia 21:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Removing supporters list

I am worried that the template is joining people into too large a group and feel the supporters list of individual people should be removed. This will allow the template to cover a wide area without bunching numerous people into one category of supporting an idea they may not even know about. For instance Steven Jones only believes in the theory of Controlled Demolition, but appears in a template that lists NESARA, and lists him as a supporter, of which he is not. I opened a RfC to get more opinions on if such a large group should be labeled as "supporters" of something they may not believe in.

Breakdown of people to theory:

• Steven E. Jones: Supports only Controlled Demolition.
• Thierry Meyssan: Supports neither NESARA or Controlled Demolition.
• Kevin Barrett: Supports neither NESARA or Controlled Demolition.
• Robert M. Bowman: Supports neither Nesara or Controlled Demolition.
• Andreas von Bülow: Supports neither Nesara or Controlled Demolition.
• Sander Hicks: Says its plausable, but doesnt support it, doesnt say it has to be the government either.
• Jim Hoffman: Doesnt support NESARA
• Michael Ruppert: Doesnt support Controlled Demolition, says government involved, but doesnt support NESARA.
• Webster Tarpley: Doesnt believe in Controlled Demolition, says government involved, but doesnt support NESARA.

Note: Those not included are ones I could not find an answer for.

I welcome comments from people below regarding the template and the issue I raise. Thank you. --NuclearZer0 23:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Commentary on proposal

• I would Keep the overall principle of a list, but subdivide it to reflect the work you have done in categorising the items supported by the people in the list above. That way we get a universal template for this rather complex and hotly partisan area. Fiddle Faddle 00:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

  Sounds like a good idea, may require a different format template however, something with multiple colums as it would require a theory at top, then below a list of people, then below a list of media associated. Maybe create a very nice look style wise as well. The problem I guess would be the size if more theories come to light, or theories without supporters. I do not think anyone on the list has come out supporting NESARA, so it may create a bad design in the end. I will try to put something together soon. --NuclearZer0 00:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• But let us, in the end, adapt this template to do the job. It would be unproductive to go through more edit warring over another template. Assuming we reach a consensus here a realistic pre-req is to have closed the consensus above in one way or another. I suggest you create a sandbox for this template and design it there? If I were a designer, I'd have a crack at it. But I'm not, so I will not. Fiddle Faddle 00:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• I don't see why "supporters" should be considered by the readers to be supporters of the named theories, rather than of some other 9/11 conspiracy theory. However, if you feel it's confusing, and can find a way to link supporters to their respective theories which will fit in a navbox, go ahead. I agree with Fiddle Faddle that you should create a sandbox copy so we can see what you have in mind that we may be able to implement. However, I don't consider the change necessary if it cannot be implemented cleanly. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• You dont find it troubling that the people in the template are listed as supporting NESARA, when not a one actually supports NESARA? I believe BLP forces us to be careful about these matters, I will attempt to draw up a multi column version, however as I stated, I believe its design would be bad as NESARA has no supporters and some do not support either theory. Lets see what others that are outside our scope of friends say regarding the matter. --NuclearZer0 11:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Not to mention some of the people do not support any of the theories presented. --NuclearZer0 11:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

After reorganizing the template to show who and what supports each theory, I am more in favor of removing the "Supporters list" as the template would look like this: User:NuclearUmpf/911template, as you can see noone supports NESARA and most do not even support Controlled Demolition. Hopefulyl some outside our spectrum comments can give a nice 3rd party view. --NuclearZer0 11:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the template is better in its current form. Some better organization may be possible, but the one proposed ins't an improvement. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you pelase address the issue of the "supporters" not supporting what they are labeled as supporting. Or reccomend an alternative to the template I made or the current one. The RfC was started to find a way to fix a BLP issue. Labeling people into categories they are not, or listing them as supporters of things they are not, is against Wiki policy. Thank you. --NuclearZer0 14:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is an issue. It doesn't look to me like anyone is being labeled or listed as a supporter of anything but 9/11 conspiracy theories, and I see no blp violation. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Please review the template more carefully, the section is titled "Proponents and supporters", which is right below the theories. If its because you believe the positioning is completely unrelated then I ask; If there was a template that listed Wikipedia terms, then listed "Rogue Admins" and contained names of admins below it under a section called "Members", would you take that as members of Wikipedia, or members of "Rogue Admins"? I think its pretty clear the connection and will introduce my template version after cleaning it up a little more, considering its design was a complain of yours I believe in the MfD. Thank you for your opinion, I will await some outside opinions. --NuclearZer0 15:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• I have a simpler proposal. Keep the list and simply delete NESARA from the template. Including controlled demolition and NESARA under the same category is comparing apples and oranges. Controlled demolition definitely belongs in the template as a theory about how the destruction of the WTC was carried out. 9/11 is tangential to the whole NESARA issue, and NESARA only purports to explain the motivation behind faking the 9/11 attacks -- it is not a theory about how it was done. NESARA apparently has no supporters prominent or notable enough to be listed in the template (as NuclearZer0 points out), and is not even mentioned in the main 9/11 conspiracy theories article. PubliusFL 19:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

  It should be noted that a majority of people do not support Controlled Demolition as well. My worry si that the topic is too broad to name individuals, that we should be working in larger layers. For instance a template involving wars with many nations would include countries that support each side, maybe even leaders of those countries for faster referencing. However it would not list political parties perhaps since that is a smaller more specific group, it would not list individual districts and neighborhoods either. As a middleground I am willing to accept this, if we can add notes to the bottom specifying who supports which, and remove NESARA as you stated since noone on the list all supports it. --NuclearZer0 20:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

  I can probably find someone who notably supports the NESARA theory of 9/11, not just NESARA in general, but it would take some work. However, this association could be fixed by moving "theories" to the bottom. That way, it's quite clear that the individuals support (some) 9/11 conspiracy theory, rather than a specific named theory. Again, I don't consider it necessary, but I wouldn't object to it being done. I think it slightly damages the structure of the template, but, if it prevents further edit wars, I'd accept the change. (Noting if there is further distortion of the template as Bov was attempting, the "deal" is off.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

  Deal is off? I don't understand this kinda talk. If you want to work toward building an encyclopedia you are welcome to join the discussion, throwing around ultimatums and talking like you own the template is not helping anyone here. I do thank you for your suggestion though. --NuclearZer0 11:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

  What I'm saying is that, if the template becomes unprotected, and you move the "theories" section to the bottom of the template, I won't revert, although I don't think it helps. However, if other unsupported changes are made (removing people who clearly belong, adding people who don't), I'd revert to a version more like this version. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

  When you stop throwing around ultimatums and threats to revert if things arent to your liking please leave a message on my talk page. For now I will wait to see if outside opinions come in and if not I will attempt to solicit some from people uninvolved in the situation and ourselves. --NuclearZer0 15:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

  I'm not sure I saw an ultimatum. I saw a statement of position. Please remove emotions from this (not adddress to anyone in particular. a general request). While you are soliciting impartial editors, could you persuade someone to summarise the debate above? At that point I imagine we should ask for the template to be unprotected. Fiddle Faddle 15:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Please remove Jim Hoffman from this template -- he has nothing to do with any tax conspiracy beliefs. This is the only time I will request this, for the record. I am not here to debate the issue of the details of the template. bov 04:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Controlled demolition is a conspiracy theory. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 05:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Requests are generally not in bold. If it is the only time you will request this, what happens next? Your arguments to remove Hoffman are not wholly convincing. He passes the duck test. This request is not in the right place, and hijacks this discussion Fiddle Faddle 08:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I've told you a week ago, there will be all sorts of troubles with expansion of the Control Demolition Hypothesis template. If this division is correct, I see little or no way for reaching consensus. Lovelight 15:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Please consider your words carefully when making such posts. I can see two meanings here. One is the reinforcement of some sort of prediction, the other is a threat. I have no means of knowing which you mean, and am most definitely not making any accusations of threatening behaviour. I am simply pointing out the ambiguity.

Consensus does not mean that everyone falls into line. It means that the majority view prevails, and sometimes does so in a formal manner. If there is no consensus, then, by Wiki convention, the status quo prevails. While this may be imperfect it also works Fiddle Faddle 17:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It's neither the threat, nor conviction, nor prediction (please, try to assume good faith)… Would you deem it necessary to go through all this again? Again, I don't think that supporters of Control Demolition Hypothesis should be called conspiracy theorists. Mainstream "truthkeepers" can do whatever they won't to do; they may go as far as to call them: "gibbering idiots". We should do better than that, right? We failed to reach majority whether we talk about alternative or conspiracy, perhaps we should seek that third option, the one you are not willing to recognize? Perhaps not… whatever may come out of this, I don't appreciate your mentioning of conventions, not while we are clearly breaking WP:WTA and WP:NPOV. Lovelight 08:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I object most strongly your suggestion that I have not assumed good faith, I stated very clearly "I have no means of knowing which you mean, and am most definitely not making any accusations of threatening behaviour. I am simply pointing out the ambiguity." Good faith also demands that you show people where they may be ambiguous in order to allow them to ensure that they continue to demonstrate editing in good faith.

With regard to what these people shoudl be called, they should be called what the consensus here says they should be called. It may matter to someone personally, but the consensus is to be followed and upheld whether we agree with it or not. Fiddle Faddle 10:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Sigh!? Now you are sighing on me?? It doesn’t really help anyone, does it? I've pleaded repeatedly, let's name this template for what it is… and it is "Control Demolition Hypothesis template". I see little or no reasons for inviting conspiracy into all this, yet you keep insisting… Your inability to realize that other editors are exercising extreme patience and good will while you're preserving (pardon me for being a bit disappointed & upset) and persisting on pure (nesara!) nonsense is disturbing. We are waiting for weeks to reach consensus, there is this clear middle ground, yet you deliberately fail to recognize it? Why is that? What sort of reactions do you expect? Have we reached consensus? No. You are so eager to warn me to weigh' my edits, you could extend such warning to yourself… honestly. Lovelight 16:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do not descend into personal attacks. I am preserving nothing. Page protection is arbitrary. It is designed to stop edit wars and has no interest in which side of a consensus divide is protected. It couold have happened at any version. I have asked several times for an impartial editor to come and close the move for consensus, but no-one has yet accepted the challenge. Perhaps you might like to place a plea on the Village Pump yourself. Oh yes. "Neseri"? What does that mean? And no, I do not permit you to be disappointed or upset. This is an encycloapadia, not a crusade. Fiddle Faddle 16:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You wont't permit:)? Ne seri is Slavic way to say cut the crap:)… Impartial editor PubliusFL shared some reasonable suggestions, and your call at village pump did result with some feedback (more dichotomy, but such is the nature of the topic…). I'm puzzled with your defensive rhetoric's, why do you constantly feel under attack? I know that you are not preserving anything, but template was locked in such silly state that administrators themselves should feel the need to act. I mean: "Theories, urban legends, and pop culture surrounding 9/11"? Also, your reluctance to meet me half way, where NPOV awaits, is unexplainable, care to explain it? To be clear on things, I like you Tim, I really do, is there a grudge between us? It's just that I don't understand why you and Arthur are so persistent on this. Look, if you are ready to implement small disclaimer which will state clearly that wikipedia doesn’t support pejorative connotations of word conspiracy, I'll agree with the title. Instantly. That is if we remove NESARA conspiracy, which clearly doesn’t go hand in hand with demolition hypothesis. Lovelight 19:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not, or should not be, personal. My persistence is solely and unequivocally towards creating and observing consensus, and in handling articles and templates with no emotion. There can be no grudge nor bad feeling because we do not know each other. I have a high regard for your principles. Fiddle Faddle 22:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, even more, glad to hear it, we did fence a bit with our (s)words here and there, and I was worried that you might take some of that personally. I'm sorry if my edits seem like WP:Point making, I've took a look at that guideline.., but just to conclude that its somewhat difficult to make a point without violating WP:Point… Well, let bygones be bygones… Listen, by now we are all well aware of the issues and I'd be happy to see this resolved. Have you looked at that Monbiot reference? A bit harsh lingo there, right? I mean foam, virus, infection, sickness, gibbering idiots (I'd guess it was done deliberate, you know, point making...) and so on. I'd deeply appreciate if you (and everybody else, of course) would take another look at the comments there, since that discussion is related to this one, and it does show much broader perspective (I've noticed Seabhcan there, would like to see his thoughts here too)… imo the control demolition hypothesis caption would capture the subject of the template perfectly. I cannot recall that you shared your opinion on that suggestion, you did say, that there is no such (no third) option if I'm not mistaking? Could you kindly share, why do you think that proposed title isn’t suitable? Lovelight 23:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's an essay, it is illustrative and related to our topica. I'll throw a brief excerpt here:

"That is why corporate attack media always smears the movement. They seek to deny credibility to anyone who challenges their place in society, the role of the truth teller. Immediately, 9/11 "skeptics", like myself, are relabeled as "conspiracy theorists," which they tell us are "conspiracy nuts," and that we are "crazy," and "lunatics," and should be wearing "tinfoil hats." Lovelight 23:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Ahem. The template has never (except for rare versions by Lovelight) been a "controlled demolition" template. It started as covering all theories and theorists not consistent with the mainstream account, and remained that way most of the time. Even Bov didn't significantly edit the list; he merely (incorrectly, IMHO) renamed it. I still see no "middle ground" acceptable to any of the three sides. You're welcome to create a separate "Controlled demolition" template, but this is not the place for it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Darn, don't know how to design one!:( Is it hard? Would learn, but this is time consuming already… Could you, would you help? You know, it would basically be the same template as yours, just named differently. I'll send you some fine spirit if you help, I surly will. Lovelight 00:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I think if you "edit" the template (I think it would show "view source" for you rather than "edit"), copy the entire section, and paste it into another document, say, User:Lovelight/911cd, you could then edit it normally. If you prefer, you could copy one of your versions. I'm not really happy with the spacing, myself; on my computer at full screen, the two theories should fit on one line, but they don't. Remember to move the CD article from the "theories" section up into the header, as I edited into one of your versions. (But your comment and this further reply should probably be moved to the talk page of the new template.) I would think there's a help file on splitting an article somewhere; you could start with that method. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks, but before we proceed, I'd like some reassurance that this won't be some sort of futile endeavor. I mean won't we end up in duplicity? No second thoughts, but I am a bit worried about that. Lovelight 01:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Not to forget, we still need to seek consensus on how to name this one. Lovelight 01:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Arthur, if we build another CD template, we'll have to remove references from this one, are you fine with that? Lovelight 01:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Not entirely, but the CD template could be included in the CT template, or the CD template should have a link to the CT template. It's clear to all except 3 (now 4) editors that CD is a conspiracy theory, so that some link is necessary. Perhaps we should hash this out on a template talk page, and see if we can come to an equitable agreement between us. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm listening, let's seek that impartiality. Lovelight 00:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Weirdness

On Steven E. Jones, I saw what looked like an extra section header, "Conspiracy theories." I edited the section to remove it, and somehow found myself editing this template, from which the section header was being transcluded, I guess. So that's what that's about, as far as I can tell. Sorry for any confusion. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[1] (context) --NuclearZer0 17:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

CD template

Here is CD template, if someone would be so kind and throw a few guidelines (Nuke, where art you brother?) on how to implement it (or even worse, could someone implement it)? I'd go and practice in the sand, but I don't like to play alone. Lovelight 03:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Resolutions

You all know that there was an effort to end this dispute; unfortunately that motion was shot down before it had a chance to fly. I was wondering, would involved parties be satisfied if we implement (in spirit of cooperation) both alternative and conspiracy (terms) in the template title. Readers could then decide for themselves… if not, please share your suggestions, but try to budge a bit from this hard-lined dissection we have now. Lovelight 12:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

If you can provide a WP:RS calling the views "alternative theories" instead of "conspiracy theories", we can discuss what the best name is. I don't think there is one. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not about to dig for that, nor I feel it necessary to keep spading and pointing and painting and whatever I was forced into in these last few weeks… utter waste of time… there is plenty of WP:RS with regards to term hypothesis but you have nonchalantly dismissed those… Well, since it may appear that I'm the only one who "deeply" cares about all this, I'll back out for a while; if there are others who have issues with this… with this conspiracy… its time to chip in, if not - conspiracy it is. After all, it is a proper name; the only sad thing are those fantastic colors with which we've painted that term… as far as I'm concerned you may freely wrap this one up Tim… Lovelight 17:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This is seriously confusing the issue. The "Effort to end the dispute" has not been shot down, and the creation of the template {{911cd}} was assuredly not part of it. There remains, higher up, a set of posts to seek to build consensus that are being conveniently ignored while mud is poured into the waters. I am not saying that we were in a crystal clear stream, but this is an unduly high load of sediment.

What needs to happen is for that discussion to be closed.

I have tried now several times to find an impartial editor who will close it and summarise it, but no-one has chosen to do it. If I do it myself Iwill be accused of partiality, so I will not do so. At present it looks, if we chose to tally "votes" (which they are not) fairly evenly balanced, with a small majority on the side of "Conspiracy". The arguments appear to come down on the side of conspiracy, too. However, were I to close this, having been wholly invoolved, I would have to say "No consensus", which means by convention that the status quo prevails. An uninvolved and expereinced editor, whether admin or not, may take a different view.

We should close that discussion properly and impartially and stop all this shilly shallying. So who will invite an editor of good reputation who is not involved to come and close this? I've tried twice, now. Fiddle Faddle 17:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I just want to organize the template ... seriously ... I think the only reason its opposed is because Arthur Rubin insists on having NESARA there, and it looks bad that noone supports such a far out theory. In all honesty, there has not been a credible point stated why the template cannot be organized by who supports which of the two theories and what documents, books etc were created about them. This template will stay locked as well, Tom has his way and so does Arthur, both admins, and they will continue to say a dispute is here, and not agree to anything short of everything they want, this way the page stays locked, you choose your friends, hope you didnt plan to put any more work into the template. --NuclearZer0 17:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The worst part is that Arthur Rubin knows its not a conspiracy theory but instead a scam. Bet he did not inform you of that. The article is written as a conspiracy theory, however its already been revealed that the creator has been investigated by the federal government for scamming people. Again, you choose your friends. --NuclearZer0 17:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

So now you admit that the 9/11 conspiracy theories are scams. Thanks. (Note: this was a reply to a version which Nuclear later edited.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I am leaving you two options, a mediation, you pick the type, or just avoid reffering to me, your attitude is poisonous to the atmosphere and the ability for others to discuss and work together. Please either be civil as I have been trying to be to you as of late, or stop addressing me if you feel you cannot. --NuclearZer0 21:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

You'd reject mediation, and you keep lying about what I said. That last statement was leaning toward WP:POINT, for which I apologize, but you've misinterpreted and outright lied about my statements recently. Previously, I've said that I found it difficult to AGF in regard your actions; any rational observer would clearly see that it meant that I found your actions inconsistent with your acting in good faith, while you stated that I failed to assume good faith. Your actions are clearly "poinsonous" to attempts to edit the encyclopedia. I suggest you stay out of the 911 conspiracy theory and theorist articles, until you can understand why your actions are poisonous . We can keep discussing NESARA, if you chose to continue. You've only lied about the content of the article so far, not about my statements. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it is quite obvious that we do need mediation. Please pick the type, 3rd party perhaps and leave a message on my talk page. I am open to most forms as its clear there is some bad blood that you have against me and we need to address it. Thank you. --NuclearZer0 21:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

PS This is what I was reffering to when I stated you always assumed bad faith [2] Seems you are arguing that since I was once the subject of a tenditious editing claim that I no longer can be assumed to edit in good faith, which was later explained to you is a bad interpretation, so it seems I was not the only one to read it that way. However if you still feel that is what it means, feel free to ask an Arbcom member. But again, please pick the type of mediation. --NuclearZer0 21:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

NESARA

Now that it has been revealed that NESARA was a money scam, as pointed out by Arthur Rubin and further supported by [3] and the Tuscan Tribune,[4] can we finally remove it from the conspiracy theory template as its really a internet scam and classified by our only WP:RS sources as an "Investment Fraud" scam? --NuclearZer0 19:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I have not read the references. Assuming they bear out what you say there is a process for making that request while the tmeplate remains, sadly, protected. The best of all worlds would be to close the discussion on the template's wording and unprotect it. But I seem to be the only person interested in finding someone to do that, unless, of course, someone knows different. Fiddle Faddle 00:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Template was unprotected yesterday... don't think that NESARA is necessary. Do as you wish. Lovelight 00:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the article will be deleted shortly anyway. --NuclearZer0 20:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it. Please note that it appears to be Arthur Rubin who added this to the template, with no input from anyone else, and it appears it was only to create a disruption. bov 01:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

What do we have here? Is that the good ol' Control Demolition Hypothesis template? Hijacked and labeled as conspiracy!? Not that I care about it… not that… Lovelight 08:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like your primary motivation with wanting to delete the NESARA article was to remove it from this template and disassociate it from 9/11 discussions. Seems perfectly logical to remove it from this template. Is any further consensus needed on that to just take it out? Do it. As for the NESARA conspiracy theory article itself, it is a valid subject in its own right and there's really no good reason to delete it. It could be debated whether it is primarily a financial scam, psuedo-religion, or 9/11 conspiracy theory, but I think the 9/11 angle is only a small aspect of it and it's clearly not a prominent one among more mainstream 9/11 researchers. - Sednar 07:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

As the one who added NESARA to the template, I really do think it belongs, at least as a placeholder for the statement that there is more than one theory, even if we don't have articles on the theory. In addition, your (Sednar's) justification for the removal is invalid. The CD theory is not a prominent one among mainstream 9/11 researchers, either. Perhaps the "theories" section should be removed entirely, or, as I suggested before, moved to the bottom, to avoid the implication that these theories are necessarily believed by these individuals, or supported by these books and films. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

NESARA is Arthur's poor attempt to libel a lot of decent folks, not that I care about it, not that… Lovelight 14:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The libel is on your part. The 911ct people have damaged their own reputations enough as it is — there's nothing I can do to save them. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what are you talking about… If I were a Griffin I'd sue us for our last penny, I would… but I really don't care much about your little orchestration, just sharing my opinion… that's all. Lovelight 14:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

If you were a Griffin, you'd be laughed out of court if you tried. Just ask Stephen Barrett, who's been called much worse. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe so, nonetheless if would be a worthy shot, which would draw public attention… then again, I'm not sure what you have in mind? It could be that you are considering gitmo to be a court of law. That said, you're blatant attempt to mix these conspiracies speaks for itself, I'm certain that you are mighty proud of it. From my perspective, this new (para)psychological wave of attack on conspiracy theorists is extremely amusing. Wonder what will come out of it? Keep up the "good work"… Lovelight 15:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate?

Is there a reason why we have both this template and Template:911tm? The content is very similar for both. GabrielF 20:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm certain someone asked that very same question at the very beginning of this frustrating discussion. Lovelight 20:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, this was addressed before :) I still don't see why two separate templates are useful as a navigational aide since the articles are generally small enough that you won't have to scroll more than a page to find one of them. However, I think this is a style issue not a POV issue and consensus seems to be that two templates are okay. GabrielF 20:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible additions

Is it not appropriate to add links to 9/11 Truth Movement and Groups and individuals challenging the official account of 9/11 to the template? Christopher Connor 19:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

We also have Template:911tm. We might consider consolidating them, but that is likely to be divisive. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Lyndon LaRouche

We can't include every person on the template who happens to believe that 9/11 was an inside job or we will need to include every person on this website -http://www.patriotsquestion911.com. If you want to include LaRouche, I can start adding each one of these names as well. However, I believe the purpose of the template should be people who are heavily involved in speaking out against the official version, not every person who believes it was an inside job. But just say the word and I'll start adding each of the names I can find. I'm sure a lot of these military and political folks have wikipedia pages. bov 16:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

LaRouche is heavily involved in speaking in favor of his version of 911; that it differs from the official version is probably irrelevant to him. Nope, he's different from the others. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Before you tried to add another theory which was eventually removed AND deleted entirely, so why would you now try this again? It's clear that LaRouche is not heavily involved -- he goes to no conferences, sells no DVDs via any 9/11 activist websites, has no 9/11 website, has written no book, etc., etc., etc. bov 23:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

His 9/11 theories are so far out that not even the fringe 9/11 conspiracy theorists want him, which is exactly why he should be in the template. As for NESARA, it (the article on the conspiracy theory) is still there, but I haven't felt like re-adding it until its name stabilizes. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Notable proponents and supporters

I'll expand list a bit more, if you would like to discuss the changes, please do so. Lovelight 20:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Many of the names you added are in no sense proponents or supporters of your theories. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

One way or another, all these man and woman question 9/11 events… I'll add more, and we'll have to rename the template, or add something like, proponents supporters and responsible criticism of 9/11. You already know my opinion about terminology, as for the purpose of the template, we had a consensus… we said that it will be expanded, we knew where it would lead. If you would like to put things in perspective, we could add lihop & mihop categories to the template? Problem is of course in libel and label, and our own terminology, since these prominent researchers and government offcials question the 9/11, they believe in conspiracy, and by our "silly deal", and this unnecessary template, that makes them conspiracy theorists. All of this was discussed before. We could also delete the whole template, should we nominate it? Lovelight 21:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Well gosh, you have got me over a barrel, you clever fellow. Add George Washington and we will have to rename it '...and the first US president.' Instead, I think we should limit it to notable proponents and supporters of 9/11 conspiracy theories. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

We are talking about notable proponent and supporters. If someone questions 9/11, then he believes in some form of conspiracy (we have whole article on those). Or? And this template is all about plural, as theorie(s). I'm wondering, how would you put it? For example Congressman Ron Paul said: "But I think we have to keep pushing for it. And like you and others, we see the investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on."; so you see he thinks there was a cover-up (conspiracy in our book). This is a flaw in the template, nothing to ridicule with, i don't find it funny at all. If you would kindly take a look above, it's a lengthy discussion. Please, share/elaborate your opinion, but be coherent. Lovelight 22:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

So he said 'keep pushing for it' - suspicious. I thought they pulled it. But, no, I am not angry with you. It is just not appropriate to add people to the template who are not 'Notable proponents and supporters' of 9/11 conspiracy theories. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, he also said cover up… Pushmepullyou?:) Listen, I'll keep adding some notable proponents.., we can discuss each case, just state your concerns. It would also be nice if you could share a thought or two on those other proposals. Lovelight 23:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's clear that there's little consensus for these abrupt changes over the last day. Please work it out here, thanks. RxS 00:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• This template is "alternative/conspiracy theories". Promoting a theory requires at least some re-evaluation of the available evidence, not simply asking questions, particularly given the amount of misinformation which has been manufactured. Questions imply at most a lack of evidence or a lack of understanding. There are many questions that can be raised in good faith, without supporting the conspiracy theory folklore, for example questions of negligence, accountability or obstruction. Peter Grey 02:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Most certainly, if you wish, we can discuss individual cases… list could actually be longer, and I've restrained from enlisting people who one cannot cite, although they did signed "Petition requesting a reinvestigation of 9/11"… also, I've noticed that some biographies are lacking related data, not sure how to act on that one, guess we'll need a joint effort to remedy that? Lovelight 02:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

What seems to be the problem peter, what bothers you? Title? Someone in particular? Please explain. Lovelight 06:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Here: [Patriots question 9/11]; there are other related sites, but this one is well rounded, well cited and well referenced. Unfortunately, I'm a bit too tired to provide a quote or reference for everyone on that list, but we can discuss any particular case, just point it out. Lovelight 06:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

For starters you're single handedly edit warring over the name of the template, a change that has zero consensus...we should also be adding names much more carefully then you are. You seem to be unwilling to respect consensus here so I'm not sure what good discussion will do. Mark Dayton for example, adding him to this template because he's critical of NORAD is completely sideways. RxS 06:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• • all these m[e]n and wom[e]n question 9/11 events is not the subject matter of this template. And "Patriots question 9/11" rather obviously does not meet the definition of "notable proponents and supporters". Random filler does not make for helpful contributions to Wikipedia. Consider also the policy regarding living persons. Every name must be justified (individually, obviously) before a potentially libellous association is made. Peter Grey 06:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

So, you are actually aware of the libel? Peter, please, could you describe the purpose of this template? You know it's basically the same as Template:911tm. So why do we need to have such similes? Why is there a need for libel in label? I'm sorry, but I honestly fail to see the reasoning behind all this. Libel seems to be its only purpose… it's not even pov it's malicious. Rosio O is a conspiracy theorist? Why? Because she asks disturbing questions? People who seek answers to unanswered questions are not conspiracy theorists. Why do we need this template? Why? Lovelight 14:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Reported. 8rr by Lovelight.

Just a note, Lovelight has been blocked for one week as a result of her edits here. [5] I suppose if anyone wants to continue this it best be done on his talk page. I'm wondering how many times people are willing to keep repeating this cycle? Is there any interest in taking this further along the dispute resolution process? RxS 20:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

If he keeps at it the blocks will get longer. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Summary

1. The template is not helpful or noteworthy (encyclopaedic);
2. The template is redundant to another better-designed template;
3. The template is not used, nor applicable with regards to its contest;
4. The template isn't a Neutral Point of View (NPOV); which was repeatedly demonstrated and documented on related talk pages.
5. The template is libelous and derogatory;
6. The template contradicts and utterly fails to follow its own "Design considerations";
7. Given time (three months), the template failed to improve its contest;
8. Creator(s) of the construct have retracted from discussion;
9. Last but not least, the template divides editors, wastes time and causes disputes; —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lovelight (talk • contribs) 16:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

1. Clearly (to me) false. As no specifics have ever been provided, I guess this is just a POV difference.
2. Arguable false. I think this one is better designed, and the content is different. 9/11 conspiracy theories is the lead for this template, and the (probably misnamed) 9/11 Truth Movement is the lead for {{911tm}},
3. Clearly incorrect. The template has generally, except for WP:POV edits by you, User:Bov, and various anons and banned editors, been used consistently with its content.
4. Arguable, but, as long as the lead article remains at 9/11 conspiracy theories, it's quite clear that it's generally been used.
5. added, to correct count. We should only include those theories and people that are generally recognized as being "conspiracy theories" or "... theorists". However, there is as much libel here as in being associated with the 9/11 Truth Movement. That template and article would also need to be killed if there was a question of libel.
6. At worst, only because the pro-conspiracists damage it. I don't know what "design considerations" you think it's been failing to meet.
7. No improvement is necessary.
8. Irrelevant.
9. If you stop editing it and/or putting it in articles where it doesn't belong, there wouldn't be a problem.

Your arguments have been rejected by consensus. If there's any further dispute, you might consider taking it to an article RfC to bring in more editors, but I doubt the result would be any different. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

We were and are in disagreement, where exactly is this consensus you're pointing too? Lovelight 16:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It's clear from the history of this article. There are a total of 4 editors (and various anons, which are probably Bov, as he states he cannot log in from work) who see a problem, two of which have been banned, and about 7 who see no problem, and do not recognize any of your arguments as valid. That seems adequate consensus. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this "banning of opposite opinion" is certainly a problem. Design considerations. Lovelight 16:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I hate to insist on the last word, as Lovelight has been blocked for WP:3RR, but consensus that "opposite opinion" belongs elsewhere is not "banning". — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Ed Asner

Apparently wikipedia is the only website unaware that Ed Asner has appeared numerous times in support of 9/11 truth events and efforts and should be on the list. Each time I try to add him, he is removed. This is part of the transparent attempts to try to block any public awareness that notable people agree with the questions about the attacks.

From his own page:

"In April 2004, he wrote an open letter to "peace and justice leaders" encouraging them to demand "full 9-11 truth" through an organization called the "9-11 Visibility Project."[5]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Asner

Other references: (Google Results 1 - 10 of about 4,470 for "Ed Asner" "9/11 truth")

• Ed Asner's message to the 9/11 truth movement
• Respected Leaders and Families Launch 9/11 Truth Statement Demanding Deeper Investigation into the Events of 9/11

The Statement also includes 43 noted authors, including New York Times #1 bestseller John Gray, as well as 18 eminent professors, historians, and theologians. Other notables include five-term Georgia Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, singers Michelle Shocked and Michael Franti, and actors Ed Asner and Mimi Kennedy.

• Appearance with Willie Rodriguez for 2007 LA 9/11 Event
• Ed Asner On Air America

"Ed Asner, active for years in the 9/11 Truth movement, is scheduled to be a part of the show tonight... Make sure you're listening."

• Ed Asner : Opening Remarks at 9/11 Symposium 11/03/07
• Ed Asner, a Passionate Crusader for Victims of 9/11, Makes a Statement with the Film "Zack's Machine"

PR.com: You’ve been involved in a lot of causes surrounding 9/11 and you have been on some committees. Can you tell me about that?

Ed Asner: I am one of those conspiracy nuts. I feel that even though no culpability may have been pointed to anybody in high places, I feel that the investigation that has taken place and the rationalization for the various occurrences of 9/11 have not been properly explained.

• Ed Asner - Post Gazette

Q: Five years later, do you still believe 9/11 was an inside job?

A: I don't know what to think. I only know and think that the procedures and the investigation of it I feel were insufficient, inadequate and that had there been a different power presiding over this country they would have done far more to bring the truth to light. As it was, I think it was stymied, bottlenecked, shortchanged, edited and diffused as much as possible. I think just the simple fact of whether there was collusion or willful blindness, the fact that no heads rolled from the catastrophe in this country I think is shocking and difficult to accept as normal procedure.

Note that this mainstream news reporter asks if he still believes 9/11 was an inside job, common knowledge. His answer is subtle, yet clear, that he challenges the official account. Still, this basic info is constantly deleted off wikipedia. That's what's wrong with wikipedia, it has an agenda and that's to control what people CAN know and what must be hidden from them. 24.4.168.11 (talk) 00:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Template which can be merged into this one

Currently Template:911tm is being considered for deletion, much of the material could be merged here:

Ikip (talk) 03:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Excluding the Urinal Duece

I oppose.--Sloane (talk) 20:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

TV episodes

If we're going to include the South Park episode, we might as well include the idiotic Fox News, History Channel, and Sci-Fi Channel "documentaries". In fact, those are clearly better suited for this template than parodies. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

What idiotic Fox News, History Channel, and Sci-Fi Channel "documentaries"?--Sloane (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I've split it out into a separate category. (As for being BOLD, as far as I can tell, you are the only Wikipedia editor in favor of listing it, although others have been neutral.) As for the idiotic "documentaries", I'll get back to you after lunch (UTC -8). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The reason I put it under a "television and movie" category is to not make the template too big. I don't see how it excludes television episodes either.--Sloane (talk) 21:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

9/11 Conspiracies, The: Fact or Fiction http://shop.history.com/detail.php?a=103790 (History Channel)

1. 9/11: The Conspiracy Files http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0972353/ (BBC)
2. The Conspiracy Files 9/11: The Third Tower http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1251727/ (BBC)
3. The Great Conspiracy: The 9/11 News Special You Never Saw http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0462318/ (?)

Scifi.com's advertising system is blocked here at work, so I can't search. All of these, although not notable, are more notable than the Urinal. In addition, Zeitgeist is not primarily about 9/11 conspiracy theories, it's got a whole bunch of conspiracy theories, even more than the movie Conspiracy Theory, and INN World Report is only loosely related, at best. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Those documentaries all have no Wikipedia article. Go ahead and create them, I'll gladly add them, but we can't at the moment. Zeitgeist, is about one third 9/11 conspiracy theories. More than enough for inclusion.--Sloane (talk) 22:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Immortal Technique

I put in Immortal Technique who is a political activist and a believer of the conspiracy theories. Johnnymurda (talk) 9:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Our article only says that he believes that Bush benefited from 9/11, not that he believed any conspiracy theories. Writing song lyrics promoting conspiracy theories (which isn't directly sourced) may not be good enough. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory

1. "ct" stands for conspiracy theories
2. The main article is 9/11 conspiracy theories

No reason has been given for the change to "alternative theories", except for an unjustified claim of BLP violations. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

1. "series" links to the true content of the template: the Category "Alternative theories of the September 11 attacks"
2. several of the articles are not conspiracy theories (examples: 9/11 advance-knowledge debate and 9/11 opinion polls articles)

Maybe, by BLP, Wowest meant "Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons" (Help:Wikipedia:_The_Missing_Manual/Collaborating_with_Other_Editors/Resolving_Content_Disputes#Policy_Violations) But, in any case, this is vandalism: it is unwarranted defamation of various articles, including 9/11 advance-knowledge debate and 9/11 opinion polls)--189.121.183.72 (talk) 01:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

And this conversation is under Conspiracy vs. Alternative--189.121.183.72 (talk) 01:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

And that section had only (at most) two editors support "alternative", and both of those are now banned. So? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You have not addressed the three arguments in front of you. Please respond to them--189.121.183.72 (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Explain why these "arguments" differ from those previously rejected by consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have forgotten your comment that "No reason has been given for the change to 'alternative theories', except for an unjustified claim of BLP violations.", but I will assume you are now acknowledging that there have, in fact, been other reasons given. If my arguments do not differ from previous ones, then it wouldn't be so hard to copy and paste the arguments against them. In any case, my points were meant to counter arguments made by you. My first point points out that although the article is named "911ct", for "9/11 conspiracy theories", its title links to the Category, "Alternative theories of the September 11 attacks", which is a broader topic than "9/11 conspiracy theories". Although I did not previously mention this, this article was created as "9/11 conspiracy theories: Conspiracy Theories, hypotheses, and popular culture". You should know this, because by the time you made your first edit, the title was "9/11 conspiracy theories: Conspiracy Theories, Hypotheses, Proponents & Supporters, and Popular Culture" [[6]]. Initial comments from the template’s creator, Timtrent, are "The template is intended to make no comment on any of the articles linked to. . . . This template is intended to be deployed at the foot of the various 9/11 articles that do not favor the official explanation . . .". Since something that does not favor an official is not necessarily a conspiracy theory (it is an alternative theory), your first point is made entirely moot. My second point, that several of the articles listed on the template are not about conspiracy theories also counters you first point. Your second point ignores the reality of what this article was intended for: not 9/11 conspiracy theories, but "solely to assist navigation" between "various 9/11 articles that do not favor the official explanation". As for the BLP claims, which were most definitely not rejected by consensus, you have still not explained why you consider them unjustified. Instead of giving another curt, irrelevant response, would you please actually take the time to address the arguments laid before you?--189.102.200.171 (talk) 23:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

If no one responds, I will assume all agree and that I can change the template's name. It has been 10 days already.--189.102.200.171 (talk) 22:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't look like you have agreement. RxS (talk) 23:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't look like I am getting any response, either.--189.102.200.171 (talk) 16:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think many people read this thread. . Of course, any change in the name of the template would be an improvement. Also, most of the articles which are "part of a series on ... conspiracy theories" are not in that category, according to the lede of the conspiracy theory article. Wowest (talk) 07:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think I mentioned that. I don't see how Arthur Rubin can be so determined on something he is not even bothering to argue. What do we do from here? Do we just wait?--189.102.200.171 (talk) 20:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Explain why any of the "arguments" weren't previously rejected, please. As for the category name not being "conspiracy theory", category names may require more clarification than article or template names, as an exception to WP:COMMONNAME. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

type=BLP

What is it supposed to do, and what does it have to do with BLP? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

This parameter is for adjustments that are necessary or appropriate for article on persons, i.e. BLP articles. The changes are concerning the format (the default for type=BIO is "collapsed") and the presentation. With "type=BIO", the template says "Articles on", instead of "Part of a series", because the latter can be misunderstood as meaning that the complete biography of the persons somehow is a part of a series and would have been compiled for that reason.  Cs32en  02:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm no template master, but I don't see that behavior, either the collapse or title change. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

If you insert {{911ct}} in an article, it just works the same as before, i.e. it is in state "autocollapse" and it collapses only on pages with multiple navboxes, and then only if it is not the first navbox. For the BLP articles, you insert {{911ct|type=BLP}}, and then it is collapsed by default, except if you would write {{911ct|type=BLP|state=uncollapsed}}, in which case it would be uncollapsed.  Cs32en  20:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I see it now thanks - it was a javascript thing. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Category: Proponents of 9/11 conspiracy theories

I've created Category: Proponents of 9/11 conspiracy theories. There are now more than 50 supporters listed in the template, this is unhelpful for the average reader. As the complete list is now available on the category page, I'll shorten the list in the template. This list includes 24 persons who are either

• Current or former heads of state
• Current or former members of government
• Politicians who support (or have supported) 9/11 conspiracy theories while in office
• Notable activists of the 9/11 Truth movement
• Well known artists or scholars

and 2 persons that have

• Wikipedia articles that receive more than 30.000 clicks per month (David Icke, Gore Vidal).

(The article Lyndon LaRouche needs a 911ct template with type=BLP, but is locked at the moment.)  Cs32en  03:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Richard Williamson (bishop)

Doesn't a bishop qualify as a politician? Richard Williamson was certainly acting as a politician in his statements, rather than as a bishop.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

That is, even if those criteria were accepted. I see nothing here except your proposal. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

A politician is someone who holds a political office, such as a member of parliament. Other people who engage in political debates are rather being called political activists. Richard Williamson is suspended from the office of bishop, so notability cannot derive from any status within the Catholic Church either. The sources that User:Tom harrison has included in Richard Williamson (bishop) do not seem to support Tom's wording, i.e. that Williamson promoted such theories, rather than expressed belief in such theories, either. Having a separate section for these remarks made by Williamson is somewhat exagerrated as well.  Cs32en  19:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I think "promoted" rather than "expressed belief" is generally what can be sourced for almost all of them. As for his "former" bishop status, it appears he promoted it while he was an (active; that is, not suspended or excommunicated) bishop. It may be he's not noted for being a 911 conspiratist, but he was a noted person and a 911 conspiratist. This criteria does not exclude him. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

One source says "The Society's support for Williamson - who also believes that the Americans planned 9/11 - is likely to end any chance of full reconciliation between the SSPX and Rome," the other says "Williamson also believes that on 9/11 the two towers weren’t destroyed by terrorist suicide bombers but rather “they were professionally demolished by a series of demolition charges from the top to bottom of the towers.” The bishop believes that the US planned the attacks for their own means and that “without 9/11, it would have been impossible to attack in Afghanistan or Iraq… And now the same forces want to do the same thing to Iran. . . They may well be plotting another 9/11." The sources don't even say that he has expressed these beliefs publicly, although we can infer that from the quotation marks. Williamson has been excommunicated before 2001, and his right to execise the office of a bishop of the Catholic Church has not been restored or granted after the excommunication has been lifted. Williamson does not represent any larger section of society (nor has he been elected by any larger group of people), as politicians (especially elected politicians) do. (Williamson is listed in Category:Proponents of 9/11 conspiracy theories.)  Cs32en  20:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I see your point. It's not established that he's promoting 911 conspiracy theories; however, if (our sources aren't clear) he stated his belives while speaking as a bishop, it would be difficult to say that he wasn't attempting to associate the Church with the theories. We cannot make that conclusion ourselves, because of WP:SYNTH, but it would then be obvious that what he was doing was promoting the theories, even if he didn't say he was. Still, our sources aren't clear. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

As he has been excommunicated ipso facto with his consecration in 1988, he hasn't ever been a bishop in the sense that would imply notability. He apparently wrote about his views on the September 11 attacks in a letter to supporters. I don't know what he was trying to do, but as he was not a Catholic bishop when he wrote the letter, he wouldn't have been able to associate the Catholic Church with the theories.  Cs32en  21:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Why does he have to be a Roman Catholic to be notable? Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

If we say that the notability of bishops is equivalent to the notability, say, of members of Congress, then this would apply only to bishops of the main Christian churches. There are, of course, other sources of notability, but the issue of whether he is a Catholic bishop or not is related to this potential source.  Cs32en  22:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems like these standards are being made up as we go. But if that's the standard, it seems he is after all a Roman Catholic bishop. - Profile: Bishop Richard Williamson. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, maybe by the journalistic standards of major news outlets. According to Pope Benedictus XVI, referring to earlier decisions of the Catholic Church, "the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty [i.e. the excommunication] – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church". [7] And the BBC does not say that Williamson is a Catholic Bishop. I assume that the Roman Catholic Church does not have copyright on the term.  Cs32en  22:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how he isn't a notable supporter. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

BLP issues

About all people categorized as "9/11 conspiracy theorists" reject that description. So if there are BLP concerns with the term, either all those people must be taken off the category, or the category's name must be changed. However, the name of the category has been regarded as a neutral description. We cannot say that the description "conspiracy theorist" is fine for some people (who we may not like or may not consider important), and at the same time insist that it is a BLP violation for others.  Cs32en  01:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

BLP is serious, and policy

WP:BLP seems to be ignored here as if it did not exist. This template blithely libels many prominent people, and is plastered over many articles. Ambiguous and disputable statements from various sources are being reported as undisputed truth. This concerns living people, about which wikipedia has very stringent rules for sourcing. For any purpose, we are only allowed to report as fact, unattributed, in wikipedia's voice, statements about which there is no serious dispute. Something in a template should be still more solidly sourced, and above all, to repeat, about living people, be ironclad.

A person's statement that they are not a conspiracy theorist is to be taken seriously. In Gore Vidal's case, he states that the Bushites were simply too incompetent to undertake a successful conspiracy. To my mind that is in fact the most decisive argument against 9/11 conspiracies. Doing nothing is not a conspiracy. Saying that Bush did nothing could mean that he simply sat and read a book about a pet goat at an inappropriate time, which is not something in dispute. McKinney's statement cited on her talk page casts doubt on the reference used, and using it there, or to keep things out of the article is in now way OR. OR always has to do with what is in the article, not what is not in it.

The proper place to have arguments is on each person's page and talk page. Once there is a BLP compliant consensus there, based on strong, well-understood, unambiguous, undisputed, reliable sources a person could be put here, not the other way around. As the template and categories show up in the article, the sources must be in the article, not somewhere in the labyrinth of wikipedia.John Z (talk) 01:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Doing nothing on purpose - "going out to lunch", as Gore Vidal says - is "Let it happen on purpose" conspiracy theory. See the article 9/11 conspiracy theories. The sources on which the list is based are all reliable sources, per Wikipedia policy. Cynthia McKinney is a member of "Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth" (http://pl911truth.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47&Itemid=53), so we have every reason to believe she said what was being reported, and there are not reliable sources reporting that she didn't say it. Most of the people in the list have stated that they are not conspiracy theorists. I have not chosen that name for the category, and I have already brought up the BLP concerns associated with that term myself. But if there is consensus that the name is appropriate and not libelous, then it should be appropriate for everyone, as an objective description, and independent of the person's own view about this. Must we remove Steven E. Jones, because he also reject being called a conspiracy theorist, or is his opinion or his personal reputation less important than, for example, Gore Vidals? And of course, articles can be misleading or wrong by omitting information, whether as a result of original research, personal preferences, or other reasons.  Cs32en  01:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec)This is the second time in four years at wikipedia that I have re-reverted something. A local consensus to use low standards of evidence does not override global rules. Please read WP:BLP. Again, concerning Vidal, the grossly insufficient quote is clearly being misread. He says "I believe about them" that they (Bush etc) "could" (probably morally could) do that (knowingly let it happen) - not that they in fact did let it happen. I came here after seeing a category deletion/ name change deletion review debate. Deletionists and inclusionists there, usually at loggerheads agree that Category:9/11 conspiracy theorists is overpopulated with marginal figures, especially since it has been renamed to say something stronger about its members. John Z (talk) 02:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for removing the list. People may say that they are not conspiracy theorists. That should be taken seriously. But if they are called "conspiracy theorists" by RS's and unambiguously promulgate what all RS's label a "conspiracy theory", it is OK to include them. But especially if they deny the label, and the evidence is ambiguous, they must be removed.John Z (talk) 02:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Very few are actually called "conspiracy theorists" verbatim by a majority of reliable sources. The sources say they promote, defend, advocate etc. conspiracy theories. Until a few day ago, the category was called "Proponents of 9/11 conspiracy theories", not "9/11 conspiracy theorists". With the name "conspiracy theorists", the category (again) risks being used as a trashcan for Holocaust deniers etc., i.e. people who nobody defends against BLP violations, basically. In part, this is a result of an ill-conceived choice for the name of the category or list, in part, it may be a deliberate strategy of some people.  Cs32en  02:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been watching this lately, but they (and some others, previously removed various reasons which make no sense) clearly are "proponents of 9/11 conspiracy theories", but it may be correct to call them "9/11 conspiracy theorists". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe everyone clearly is a conspiracy theorist, I never followed this much. But the evidence needs to be in the article, according to accepted standards, not here. The difference between Jones and Vidal is that Vidal's article has nothing in it which shows that he definitely believes in a "Doing nothing on purpose" conspiracy, while according to his article, Jones belongs to various organizations, asserted it was "an inside job", etc. The difference is glaring; a much, much lower standard of evidence is being applied in Vidal's case. Of course RS's saying someone promotes, defends, advocates etc. (what is generally regarded as) conspiracy theories is good (but not always definitive) evidence for a "conspiracy theorist" categorization.John Z (talk) 07:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

This is only a BLP issue if there aren't RS. Here, there are RS. I agree with AR. Verbal chat 07:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Then put the RS's in the articles. It is a BLP issue until solid, unambiguous, essentially unanimous RS's are there. That's the job of people who believe someone should be in the template. The RS's have to be essentially unanimous just to attain normal standards, let alone BLP ones.John Z (talk) 07:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Typo in my comment above ... "it may not be correct to call them conspiracy theorists." Regardless, they are clearly proponents or possibly false-light distributors of 9/11 conspiracy theories. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I should add that the category rename makes the (new) category violate WP:BLP, and hence should be revoked. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

User Cs32en wrote: "Cynthia McKinney is a member of "Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth" [...] so we have every reason to believe she said what was being reported"

Please recall our previous discussion on this issue. Reading the original transcript it became clear that McKinney's remarks were bent out of shape. Her article still has serious issues which remain to be fixed. Dynablaster (talk) 11:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Jersey Girls, Family Steering Committee, 9/11: Press for Truth

The articles about these things really don't explain why they're in this template. Seems like a series BLP/NPOV problem.Prezbo (talk) 19:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)