Template talk:911ct

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 serious BLP/NPOV problem.Prezbo (talk) 19:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The article are about people who actively and publicly support statements that are being described as 9/11 conspiracy theories. For this reasons, the links to the articles are included in the template. As long as the term "9/11 conspiracy theories" is being regarded as a neutral, objective description of these hypotheses, there is no BLP-sensitive issue here.  Cs32en Talk to me  22:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe these people actively promote conspiracy theories, but their articles don't provide any indication that that's the case, and the template needs to rely on those article for verification.Prezbo (talk) 00:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Ahem. The groups promote the theory that the 9/11 Commission was a conspiracy not to investigate the acts correctly. That qualifies as a conspiracy theory in my book, even if not specifically named in the 911ct article. The film seems less clear from the present article, but it still promotes the theory that Commission was prevented from following some investigations, which may also qualify as a conspiracy.

I'm restoring the links. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The 9/11 Family Steering Committee article says that they were critical of the 9/11 Commission's scope, financial resources, conflicts of interest allegedly held by its participants, etc. These are totally normal criticisms to make of a government body and don't make you a conspiracy theorist. The idea that a government commission would slant its results in order to exonerate the people who set it up isn't a conspiracy theory except in the most legalistic sense, and it doesn't meet Wikipedia's definition of "9/11 conspiracy theories" as theories that "allege that the September 11 attacks in 2001 were either intentionally allowed to happen or were a false flag operation orchestrated by an organization with elements inside the United States government." The Jersey Girls article basically just has a quote saying that they thought the commission's result was inadequate, so the inclusion of that article is even less justified. Again I'm just talking about what's in these articles, maybe they've said much crazier things that Wikipedia has failed to record, but as long as the articles don't indicate that they are conspiracists they shouldn't be in this template.Prezbo (talk) 17:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that their theories are not 9/11 conspiracy theories, but the we need to reach consensus at that article, first, so I won't reinsert. However, those theories are considered "9/11 conspiracy theories" in the real world, so that they should be there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

So you're saying that you want to discuss this at the Jersey Girls talk page instead? That's fine, create a new section there if you want to do that.Prezbo (talk) 17:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I want to discuss it at Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories, as, at least "Press for Truth", makes the claim that the 9/11 Commission was prevented from studying some aspects, and that the assertions of bias and "conflict of interest" about the Commission are 9/11 conspiracy theories, and should be noted in that article, and hence the template is applicable to those who make that assertion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Charlie Sheen

I think that we should add Charlie Sheen to the template. He has publicly supported 9/11 cts on multiple occasions, and clearly wanted to associate himself with the theories.  Cs32en Talk to me  03:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I suppose so. I think he falls more into generic conspiracy theorists, rather than 911ct, but it seems appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Rosie O'Donnell

Rosie O'Donnell should be added for the same reasons as Charlie Sheen. Although Sheen was more active in making his views known, O'Donnell also made her views public on occasions in which she was in the spotlight of public attention.  Cs32en Talk to me  03:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Template:911ct/Supporters/Scholars etc

Is unused, so I nominated it for deletion. Bulwersator (talk) 05:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC) And

Template:911ct/Supporters/Politicians and Officials (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:911ct/Supporters/Political activists (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Bulwersator (talk) 05:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Change of template name with no consensus

I am asking the editor who moved the template to come here and justify the move, one for which no consensus was formed. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 02:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure. "911ct" is cryptic. A Porsche car? Something to do with Connecticut, maybe? The model number for a piece of (electrical) equipment? And so on. Even in the context of 9/11, ask folks on the street what "ct" might mean and I wonder if many would guess "conspiracy theory" – unless they already happened to be in that conversation. (But that'd be an assumption.) CsDix (talk) 02:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with your move without first building consensus and your rationale. The template name was brief, intended for easy addition to articles. You have produced a long winded name. The usage of the template was obvious. It was present and contained all the information needed. I oppose your move. With templates, especially those in use on a significant number of pages it is customary to build consensus prior to making bold moves. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 02:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, given the further observations I included here, it's not that long-winded a name – but it is surely a cryptic one, no? (When I first saw its name, I had to follow the link in order to get some idea of what it was about.) Is making something clearer / less ambiguous / less cryptic a bold move? Anyhow, by all means have it moved back if you wish. CsDix (talk) 02:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

How about you undo all the work you performed? Moves of this nature without consensus are not useful. It now requires administrative intervention, so please either do this if you are an admin yourself or request it of you are not. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 03:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Never mind. I've put in the request. Template names should be concise. Your quest for clarity is laudable. My view is that this was a move too far. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 03:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the need to rename the template again – especially to something more cryptic – so I'd let it be. I don't imagine there'll be a glut of new articles demanding more than the occasional entry or paste of "September 11 conspiracy theories". After all, the main 9/11 template is {{September 11 attacks}}, not {{911 attacks}} or {{911a}}. CsDix (talk) 03:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)