Wikipedia

Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories/Archive 20

< Talk:9 | 11 conspiracy theories
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Ihaveabutt in topic Saddam involvement as conspiracy theory
Archive 15←Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22→Archive 25

We're not supposed to use neologisms

Latest comment: 15 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

Since Cs32en spammed the previous discussion with irrelevent info, I'm starting a new one. Per WP:NEO:

"Neologisms are words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities....Wikipedia is a tertiary source that includes material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term."

I looked up "9/11 Truth Movement" in the Oxford English Dictionary[2], Bartley[3], HarperCollins[4] and Merriam-Webster [5] and not one has a definition on this neologism.

According to WP:NEO, we should not be using neologisms in Wikipedia articles. Therefore, I propose that we no longer use the term "9/11 Truth Movement". Would any other editors like to weigh in on this topic? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

" 9/11 Truth Movement" not a neologism. As the Term "9/11 Truth Movement" has been in use 5+ years old it is not "recent". As demonstrated above and in the article itself "9/11 Truth movement" is not only widely used by reliable sources, there have been many articles, commentaries etc. in reliable sources "about" the 9/11 truth movement. Is the dictionary test applicable here?, this is a phrase not a word. I believe like in the mass media we should use both truth movement and conspiracy theorists. It also depends on the topic being written about of course.
As for “9/11 deniers” the term is extremely limited use and is confusing. What are they denying the government story? that the 9/11 occurred? Keep it out unless in a direct quote (if it is in a direct quote extra consideration should be used before using that quote) Edkollin (talk) 03:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
5 years isn't recent??? You do realize that the English language is hundreds, if not thousands of years old? Of course, it's recent. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 07:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
That's within 4 years of when the event it is based on happened. Is "September 11th" also a neologism? If so, it sounds like we can change it also then. What are the new proposals for "September 11th"? If all that matters is that it is a neologism, then it seems that anything goes with these titles and they can change week by week. 76.102.212.231 (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
"September 11th" is a date, not a neologism. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Following this to its logical conclusion a large percentage of Wikipedia articles need to be deleted immediately. Any article about a musical trend that has emerged in the last (ten,twenty?) years is no good. Wikipedia started this decade, can't use that word. Part of Wikipedia's identity is putting up verified information faster then a traditional encyclopedia. Neologisms or at least your view of it would preclude many articles from being written before it appears in a traditional encyclopaedia. Things just move quicker these days, 5 years is not recent at all. You and me have an opposing view of the purpose of this exercise , you view the rules as a be all , end all, I view them as a means to the goal of writing the most informative article possible. This is voluntary exercise, it is not a law school exam ,it is not a game of gotcha!. Back to the topic, if we were discussing this two years ago I would agree with you that it was to soon. There are points in the article where 9/11 truth movement is being used where 9/11 conspiracy theorists would be the better term. If "recognized" 9/11 truth groups espouse a theory it is proper to use both terms. When writing generally "9/11 conspiracy theorists" is the better termonology and "9/11 truth movement" should only be used to break up monotony. Edkollin (talk) 18:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I haven't been very active in many music-related articles, so I can't say one way or the other. Since there are far more publications on music than conspiracy theories, it might not be a problem. I can find entries for "hip-hop" on Merriam-Webster[6] and "gangsta-rap" on Encyclopedia Britannica[7]. Anyway, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The OED doesn't have September 11th Attacks either. 76.102.212.231 (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Because it's a phrase, not a term. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I am undoing the sweeping changes until a consensus has emerged. Unomi (talk) 23:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Official Stroy is a Conspiracy

Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

Conspiracy theory means that it's theorized that a conspiracy of people led to the event, based on thin evidence.

The official story is full of holes, and based on thin evidence. Therefore, the official (osama Bin Laden did 9-11) is a conspiracy theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.240.248.28 (talk) 16:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your personal opinion has no place in Wikipedia. That's one of the things you'll just have to learn to accept about Wikipedia. The term has negative connotations beyond the simple meaning of "a theory about a conspiracy", and since reliable sources don't refer to the official story as a "conspiracy theory", it would be a violation of our neutrality policy to decide to use such a loaded term. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Except that the official story hasn’t been proven to be full of holes and based on thin evidence. — NRen2k5(TALK), 03:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
There is no "official story" on the 9/11 terrorist attacks anymore than there's an "official story" about the Battle of Stalingrad, the Earth being round, or that the Boston Red Sox won the 2004 World Series. There is simply reality. A Quest For Knowledge (talk)
"There is simply reality." Seeing this statement got my curiosity up, so I read Wikipedia's article on Reality. It appears that reality is not so simple - there are various forms and definitions of reality. The article divides it roughly into truth, which might also be called consensus reality, and fact, which appears to be another word for physical reality. As far as I can tell, Wikipedia does not have a clear policy on which form of reality should predominate. For example, Wikipedia's article on Earth appears to be totally based on physical reality, although my observations suggest that the consensus view among humans would be that Earth's origins are metaphysical (consensus reality.) If consensus reality is supposed to hold the upper hand, the Earth article is probably out of balance and POV (but I personally like it the way it is.) In contrast, most of Wikipedia's 9/11 articles conform well to consensus reality, but some are arguably out of touch with physical reality. If consensus reality is supposed to dominate, the articles are in good conformance. Wildbear (talk) 08:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Reality is not so simple which is (probably) why Wikipedia has WP:V, WP:OR, WP:UNDO and WP:RS to settle any possible disagreements. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Personal opinions - or philosophical discussions about reality and truth - have no place here. The criterion by which we consider material for inclusion in Wikipedia is Verifiability. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 13:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Conspiracy theory doesn't actually mean "a theory involving a conspiracy". It means it is a conspiracy theory. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Bentham Open… again

Latest comment: 15 years ago63 comments11 people in discussion

Autonova, see [8]. — NRen2k5(TALK), 20:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

When the truth is given to you in a clear, scientific, undeniable way the only response you have is to discredit the author's peer review process? We aren't even talking about the peer review of the paper in question. How about the electron microscopy, X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy or differential scanning calorimetry? Does Bentham's horrendous peer review process mean that the photomicrographs don't depict unexploded thermite? In the very same section we are quoting FEMA's and NIST's reports which don't even follow the scientific method. This is laughable. Autonova (talk) 20:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Maybe you’d like to explain how finding rust, aluminum and paint chips in a skyscraper collapse supports controlled demolition? That’s just fucking surreal! If you have a problem with FEMA and NIST’s reports, then talk about it! And yes, we are talking about the peer review of the paper in question. The academic criticism I’ve linked for you shows that Bentham Open journals are more like a vanity press than peer-reviewed. — NRen2k5(TALK), 23:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
If you had actually cared to scan casually through the paper in question you'd know that the paper isn't announcing the presence of rust, aluminium or paint chips. In fact, he specifically ruled out a paint chip misidentification. As for the NIST and FEMA reports, see [9]. FEMA themselves noted a "scarcity of physical evidence". In what world can a reverse-worked bullshit report with no physical evidence be considered more reliable than this paper? The two reports are subject of massive dispute. Are we really talking about the paper in question? I've heard no criticism of the peers who reviewed the paper.

-Niels H. Harrit, nanochemist with 37 years experience. -Jeffrey Farrer, Ph.D. in Materials Science and Engineering from the University of Minnesota, specialises in nanoparticle characterisation -Steven E Jones, Physics PHD -Kevin R Ryan, BS Chem, Certified Quality Engineer -Frank M. Legge, physics student. Autonova (talk) 00:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

  1. Sigh. Thermite is aluminum and rust. Finding the components of thermite in the rubble of a skyscraper is about as impressive as finding sand in the desert.
  2. “Reverse-worked bullshit report with no physical evidence”? Oh come on, now you’re just getting ridiculous.
  3. Double sigh. Those aren’t the referees of the paper you listed, they’re a few of the authors. Or maybe they are the referees too. That would be pretty funny. — NRen2k5(TALK), 05:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  1. "It is composed of aluminum, iron, oxygen, silicon and carbon. Lesser amounts of other potentially reactive elements are sometimes present, such as potassium, sulfur, lead, barium and copper."
  2. Am I being as rediculous as saying that a scientific paper authored by at least 4 field experts would mistake nanochemically enhanced thermite chips with fucking rust?
  3. I concede, I didn't know those were the authors and not the peers. Since we don't know the peers, unless you can come up with a rebuttal paper or ligitimate proof that the source isn't reliable, the paper belongs in this article. Autonova (talk) 09:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  1. Which is both unimpressive and says nothing to support the “nanothermite” hypothesis.
  2. There’s nothing ridiculous about what I said, considering that your “experts” were established truthers before they ever wrote the paper. And yes, touting common paint chips as “nanothermite” and a smoking gun w.r.t. controlled demolition really is ridiculous.
  3. You couldn’t tell authors apart from peers. Kinda tells me you don’t have the first clue what you’re talking about. And again, see [10] about Bentham’s reliability. Or go ahead, keep trying to fit that square peg in that round hole. — NRen2k5(TALK), 14:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Your dispute of Bentham Young's academic reputation doesn't belong in this article. The paper I have included is, by definition, peer-reviewed. Noone is claiming that Bentham's reputation is flawless, just as noone is claiming that NIST's and FEMA's reports are not widely disputed.Autonova (talk) 21:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
This has already been discussed multiple times and this article is not a WP:RS. If you have something new that hasn't already been discussed, fine. I suggest you search the talk pages of this and the other 9/11 conspiracy theory articles. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, and I’m a banana if your definition of “banana” is vague enough. — NRen2k5(TALK), 23:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Definition of peer review from wikipedia: "Peer review (also known as refereeing) is the process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field." As you can see from the above post, 2 or more of the people reviewing the paper are experts in the field. This debate is clearly a waste of time anyway. As soon as someone tries to refute cutting-edge science with some bullshit spam scandal there's no hope. Have fun with your pathetic agenda guys, this paper's already blown apart the whole 9/11 story, from a cursory google search and this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oO2yT0uBQbM.Autonova (talk) 00:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Real peer-reviewed journals do not publish the list of reviewers for a particular paper, although they may publish the list of reviewers in specific fields. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Wasn't one of those peers an author of the paper? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Bentham Open invites non-experts to referee journals and allows authors to select the referees for their journals. Bullshit spam scandal? Pathetic agenda? Blown wide open? You’re delusional, kid. — NRen2k5(TALK), 05:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
How about using legitimate reasons for rejecting the journal instead of relying on Schopenhauer's "Ways To Win An Argument"? Unless you can find proof we have to assume Bentham does not allow "non experts to referee journals". No one has yet proven that the Bentham peer review process doesn't comply with standards normally applied to peer review. Not only have no rebuttal papers been published but no experts have as yet refuted the papers findings but instead concentrate on rejecting the peer review process. I believe there is no known substance other than thermite that matches the chemical characteristics of the particles. I have no doubt that the particles are not thermite residue but regardless of what they are the experts should be finding the mistake the authors made in analyzing them or determining what the particles actually are, not ignoring the problem and dismissing the paper because they don't like the implications. Science should be refuting the paper not a blog. Using a blog to refute Bentham contradicts your own stand on not using blogs as a reliable source. Wayne (talk) 08:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I’ll take Schopenhauer over plugging my ears and chanting, “Lalalalalala, I can’t hear you!” anyday. See [11] (again – notice I posted it at the very beginning of this section?). It’s not a blog, it’s a forum. I know you’d like to handwave it away as an unreliable source, but take a look: It’s a secondary source listing more reliable primary sources – mostly correspondence from university professors and other academics on university servers. You can look any of them up by name and ask them about the matter yourself. And again, I’m not saying that what Jones’ et al paper found wasn’t what you could call thermite by a stretch; I’m pointing out that thermite is aluminum and rust and there’s absolutely nothing notable about finding the two together in the rubble of a modern building. When you find water in your sink, a reasonable hypothesis is that somebody’s had the faucet on, not that somebody’s been burning hydrogen! — NRen2k5(TALK), 14:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
however, you would probably become suspicious if the water turned out to be explosive... under which circumstances would macroscopic pieces of rust an aluminum break down to nano-scale particles, settle neatly on an organic matrix, and form explosive particles, during the collapse?   Cs32en  14:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
If they’re normal components of the paint then they could already be nano-scale particles and arrange themselves into an “organic matrix” at some point in the paint’s life cycle. It’s engineered structures – not mundane particles – at the nano scale that would be really noteworthy. I’m not sure what you mean by the part about forming explosive particles during the buildings’ collapse. Thermite is not explosive. — NRen2k5(TALK), 14:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Isn't paint one of the components of some IEDs? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Never heard that before, but I wouldn’t be surprised. Doesn’t really say anything to confirm or deny the hypothesis of 9/11 controlled demolition by thermite, though. There’s absolutely nothing out of the ordinary about finding paint in the rubble of a skyscraper. — NRen2k5(TALK), 15:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Paint may contain metal oxides as pigments, but not elemental aluminum. Nano-scale aluminum particles are difficult to manufacture, due to the danger of ignition and other factors. So these particles are not part of any paint that wouldn't have been produced for the purpose of being an explosive at the same time. Well, the authors of the paper say they have found small pieces consisting of nano-particles on a matrix of organic compounds that could only have been produced in a specialized facility. Ordinary thermite is incendiary, not explosive. The smaller the particles, however, it becomes increasingly explosive (meaning higher brisance), as the proportion of surface to volume increases (see nano-thermite).  Cs32en  16:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Even if this discussion was a fair one (and it clearly isn't as Cs32en's knowledge on the subject seems to trump that of everyone), it doesn't matter. As he has pointed out below, the paper deserves to be mentioned in an article about 9/11 conspiracy theories. Seeing as we include "Jewish involvement" and "image layering theories", I'd say it would be a pretty crap article if it wasn't even mentioned. Autonova (talk) 17:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Autonova writes: the paper deserves to be mentioned in an article about 9/11 conspiracy theories. Given that this paper constitutes an analysis conducted by proper scientific method and is not armchair conjecture, are you sure about that? Further corroboration is needed for support or rebuttal of the paper (and such analyses are reputed to be in the works), but even in the absence of corroborating analyses, I don't see this type of analytical procedure as being the stuff of conspiracy theory, in the usual sense of the term. If this is conspiracy theory, then what type of investigation isn't conspiracy theory? Wildbear (talk) 04:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I just think an 9/11 conspiracy article which includes "no plane" theories, which the Truth Movement widely rejects, should also include the paper that the movement will undoubtedly cite to its opponents hereafter. It's helped sign on something like at least 70 professional architects, and has been seen on the news quite a bit. It's not about truth- it's about verifiability. The movement considers this paper one of its most powerful weapons and it should be mentioned, as detailed below. Autonova (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I see what you mean though- it's got far more weight behind it than the vast majority of the other material. The only thing we can do is present it as a scientific study and let the reader make up their mind. Autonova (talk) 19:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

There are most often quite reasonable doubt about the reliability of a certain publication. Whether the wording in a particular story, from the New York Times or from the Weekly Standard or FOX News, is a reflection of the prevailing view of the society or a certain scientific community, or whether it's the result of a particular political agenda, is often open to question. That does not stop us from using these sources, however, we do attribute the statements to the sources if there are such doubts.
There are some legitimate doubts about the peer-review process of this paper. Although the reviewers are probably none of the people named above (these are co-authors of the paper), there is the question of whether the review was anonymous or whether it was supposed to be anonymous by failed to remain so. The Editor in Chief of the Journal, Prof. Marie-Paule Pileni, has recently resigned. She said that she wasn't aware that the paper was being published. However, she obviously only resigned after she received questions from media for several days, and then wanted it to appear as if the Danish journal Videnskab was the first journal who brought this to her attention. She also is an expert in nanochemistry, yet stated that the paper would not fall within the field of her expertise.
Much of what is being said about the content of the paper, is, frankly, just smear. That aluminum and rust might be found in the rubble of a steel-frame building hit by a plane might be true, but you wouldn't, without the presence of nanothermitic material, find nano-sized particles of these components, on an organic matrix, in the rubble. Also, if this would be a non-standard paint, that does not dissolve in methyl-ethyl-ketone, it would be an explosive paint, which would itself warrant an extensive investigation, of course. My main concern with the paper would be that the thermitic material would have somehow be added to the dust samples after their collection. While I doubt that one of the authors could have produced this high-tech material, intelligence services might have done this, and would have been able to do so without the knowledge of the authors of the paper. This can, and should be checked, by analysing different samples of the dust, with different chains of custody. As far as I understand, such analyses are now underway, though not by the government.
It's better to err on the side of caution here, and only use the paper as a source in those article where it can be used per WP:SELFPUB. That many proponents of World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories claim to have found unignited thermitic materials is, however, a fact that can be established by notable independent secondary sources (TV and newspaper reports). It is thus relevant for the article and should be included.  Cs32en  09:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Cs32en's point seems perfectly sound. Can I revert back to my edit? - Autonova
No. Tom Harrison Talk 14:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Do you actually have anything so reject Cs32en's point? Autonova (talk) 17:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if they found pieces of pipe among the rubble. This is the kind of nonsense you get when you first decide what must have happened, and then look for evidence in support. Tom Harrison Talk 16:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Both sides of the fence are guilty of this. Two government-funded reports were never going to rock the boat. The difference with this report is that it's conclusive in a scientific way and has evidence to support it, not some 'pancake theory'. Autonova (talk) 17:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
“Two government-funded reports were never going to rock the boat.” And you know that… how?
“The difference with this report is that it's conclusive in a scientific way and has evidence to support it” You have that completely back-asswards.
Jones’ report is no more evidence of controlled demolition or conspiracy than a crack in the sidewalk is evidence that the world’s about to split in half. — NRen2k5(TALK), 05:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Please NRen, for the love of god, stop trying to disprove Jones' work with metaphors. Do you have a reason as to wikipedia's SELFPUB policies for the paper's exclusion? Our 'opinions' of the paper's conclusions are pretty irrelevant seeing as we have nowhere near enough scientific knowledge to disprove it. Autonova (talk) 19:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
No, far from it. There’s a huge difference between an academic peer-reviewed work and a self-published one. I don’t really have a problem with it being added as self-published. — NRen2k5(TALK), 19:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Unlike NIST, which did not look for evidence of explosives, because "you're wasting your time if you are looking for something which isn't there". Better to have a working hypothesis, and the look for supporting evidence, than to have a working hypothesis, and then do not check for possible evidence of it's falsification.  Cs32en  17:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Some ideas are so absurd and stupid, they don't warrant legitimate scientific study. What if some nutcase claimed that they had irrefutable photographic evidence not only that Bigfoot is real, but he's alive and well living on Mars?[12] Or that the Earth has 4 simultaneous days within a single 24 hour rotation but we don't realize this because we've been educated stupid by evil academia who suppress Time Cube Truth? If NASA and the NIST wasted their valuable time and my valuable taxpayer money investigating every stupid, hair-brained fringe theory in the world, people would complain and justifiably so. Also, if they didn't waste time investigating 9/11 denial, that doesn't mean they didn't perform tests that weren't falsifiable. Finally, the proper US agency that should be investigating 9/11 denial isn't the NIST anyway, but the American Psychiatric Society. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
"Some ideas are so absurd and stupid, they don't warrant legitimate scientific study." Please contact the Smithsonian/NASA Astrophysics Data System immediately! They are listing the paper in their data system.  Cs32en  12:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
So? I bet the Yellow Pages has a listing for the Alien Abduction Crisis Centers of America. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Didn't find anything for "Alian Abduction" in the database, though.  Cs32en  13:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
In the Yellow Pages? Anyway, I think we're getting off topic. Bentham does not qualify as a WP:RS. This has been discussed multiple times before. Do you have anything new to bring to the discussion? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree that this is indeed off-topic.  Cs32en  14:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
A Quest For Knowledge: Some ideas are so absurd and stupid, they don't warrant legitimate scientific study. Exactly, the nerve of Galileo trying to make you believe the Sun is the centre of the Solar system. You seem to be ignoring that the particles were found by scientific enquiry and the findings have not yet been refuted or explained. Hardly in the same ballcourt as Bigfoot on Mars. Arguing to exclude because the papers peer review is disputed is irrelevant. Nist was not peer reviewed and in fact has rejected calls that it allow it's findings to be peer reviewed yet we still use it. If the paper has sufficient support by experts then it too must be presented in an article on conspiracy theories. Wayne (talk) 17:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Likening yourself to Galileo now? Hmm, where did I put my Truther Bingo card……… — NRen2k5(TALK), 20:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Out of interest, NRen, do you believe the official account of 9/11? That hijackers, while being followed closely by the CIA, took over jet liners with box cutters, evaded the most sophisticated defense network in the world, and slammed into the WTC towers, causing them to collapse in a pancake fashion whilst emitting sounds of explosions? And that, a few hours later, WTC 7 collapsed due to a few asymmetrically distributed fires, exhibiting all the hallmarks of a controlled demolition, including more explosions? Why do you think that you 'know' this when it is clearly a glorified crimescene? Autonova (talk) 20:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Out of interest, Autonova, have you been taking your happy pills lately? — NRen2k5(TALK), 07:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately I left them in my padded cell with my tin foil hat. Autonova (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Why are we even discussing this again? The Chief Editor of the journal resigned in protest as a result of this paper saying that she never authorized its publication, did not consider it worthy of publication in the journal and that its publication may have been politically motivated; other editors have also resigned from the journal as a result. [13]. Bentham Open publications has been accused by academics of 'spamming' researchers with offers to publish or edit the journal, even where those researchers have no background in the field of study.[14][15]. Sorry, it does not meet the qualifications of WP:RS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from using examples to illustrate non reliability that have been discredited. While Bentham did spam they explained how and why it happened and apologised. There is no evidence that any researchers with no background in the relevant field of study have edited or peer reviewed any article which makes the spamming irrelevant. Wayne (talk) 09:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
The paper at least meets SELFPUB guidelines in the context of Steven Jones' work on the collapse of WTC.
  :1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
  :2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
  :3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  :4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
  :5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Autonova (talk) 20:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not self-published. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Haven't you been the one who has argued that the journal would be a vanity press all along?  Cs32en  20:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
No. I've argued that it was not reliable due to the fact that it has not earned a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Why do you think it's not self-published? 86.112.216.56 (talk) 20:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't matter whether it's self-published. If there is no doubt that it was written by those authors, and if it qualifies as a reference under WP:SELFPUB, it should be included. No information about where it was published should be in the text of the article, as that adds claims of notability which we do not believe to be legitimate claims of notability.

I took the RS issue up with someone at the noticeboard: [16]. "The best test for an academic RS is that it is referred to by other academic papers." data system The paper is a reliable academic source. 213.40.98.251 (talk) 13:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

SAO/NASA ADS Physics Abstract Service is not an academic paper. — NRen2k5(TALK), 07:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with NRen2k5. I brought this issue up myself, answering to a comment from AQFK. What I meant was that SAO/NASA apparently had no prima facie reason not to regard the paper as an academic paper, and thus listed it in their database. This is not a citation, of course.  Cs32en  12:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Better not to censor this kind of information. Lay it all out, including the fact that the editor and chief of the journal resigned and said she didn't approve of the paper being published. II | (t - c) 17:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Bentham Open has agreed to publish a nonsensical article written by a computer program, claiming that the manuscript was peer reviewed and requesting that the "authors" pay $800 in "open access fees."[17] The editor of the journal is resigning: "I will definitely resign. Normally I see everything that comes through. I don't know why I did not see this...The peer review didn't work".[18] So much for it's reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The same kind of hoax, using the same computer program, apparently succeeded with Elsevier's journal Applied Mathematics and Computation - a non-open access journal. Just that this journal actually published the article. [19] I have always argued for including information about the paper as evidenced by reliable secondary sources, such as the Danish television and print media.  Cs32en  21:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
No, that just means that we need to be careful of what articles we count as WP:RS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


No, you have argued for whatever pushes your POV. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
May I point out to AQFK that we mention/use both Bazant and NIST yet neither are peer reviewed and neither have proof of accuracy or fact-checking for all content. NIST has in fact rejected requests for it's data to be peer reviewed. Wayne (talk) 10:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Just for info. The authors have asked Yuan T. Lee to review their paper. Be interesting to see the result. Wayne (talk) 11:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Section on alleged "Jewish involvement"

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

There are actually two very different types of theories. Some theories are about a Jewish, Jewish-Masonic or whatever world domination conspiracy. Another type of theories allege, for example, that rough elements of Israeli intelligence services were somehow involved.  Cs32en  17:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

No, there's only one type of conspiracy theory. In mixed company, the antisemitism is a subtext. Elsewhere, it's overt. Tom Harrison Talk 18:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
So you would say that everyone who thinks that the five Israelis who, according to our article on the 9/11 advance-knowledge debate, "were said to have been videotaping the disaster with cries of 'joy and mockery'" were somehow suspicious would be an anti-semite, although not an overt one?  Cs32en  18:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
How does that follow? The taxonomy of conspiracy theories may not imply anything about the character of those who believe them. Although work on believers' psychology is ongoing, per "The Inner Worlds Of Conspiracy Believers / Science News". Retrieved 2009-06-07. Tom Harrison Talk 21:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Jewish involvement: Self-referenced content; this needs an independent secondary source.

Latest comment: 15 years ago14 comments3 people in discussion

Cs32En: You added a self-refenced tag to the article. Can you please point me to the policy or guidline to which you refer? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:V  Cs32en  21:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Which section? My understanding is that for statements of opinion, you can cite significant viewpoints provided it is attributed as such (which it is) per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
We would need independent reliable sources to establish the notability then, as the section refers to "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications".  Cs32en  22:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Are you seriously contesting whether the ADL viewpoint's are notable regarding anti-Semitism? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
This institution is rather an involved party than "an expert" with regard to this matter.  Cs32en  23:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, it doesn't matter anyway. Parity of sources allows us to use the ADL.
But I'm still curious. Do we really need an independent secondary source for a statement of opinion from the Anti-Defamation League? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
That's a misunderstanding of Parity of sources. We are dealing not with a statement about the subject of a fringe theory, but with a statement about the characterization of a specific fringe theory itself here. The characterization is not subject to the fringe-related policy guidelines.  Cs32en  02:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Please point us to the exact section and policy or guideline that says such a thing. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
WP:Fringe#Parity of sources: "Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Wikipedia." Obviously, numerous reliable sources do characterize 9/11 conspiracy theories, so Parity of sources does not apply with regard to the characterization of the theories. Parity of sources means that you don't need a peer-reviewed paper to provide context for the description of the content of a fringe theory.  Cs32en  02:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Keep reading. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't see how they're involved. Does someone say they are part of the conspiracy? Tom Harrison Talk 23:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
The institution is an involved party with regard to a number of controversies about what it anti-Semitism or not.  Cs32en  02:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

This looks a lot like the evolving standards of notability on Template talk:911ct. Tom Harrison Talk 22:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Presentation of content without inline attribution

Latest comment: 15 years ago29 comments8 people in discussion

I just wanted to draw everyone's attention to Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Particular_attribution. In particular, it says "When using sources written by authors who are a reliable experts in the field in which they are writing, consider using the facts mentioned by them rather than making direct attributions of their opinions. Facts do not require in-text attribution since they are not solely the opinions of people." Therefore, it is incorrect to say something like "According to the official story, on 9/11 terrorists attacked the US". Instead, we can plainly state the facts as facts: "On 9/11, terrorists attacked the US". It still needs to be cited to WP:RS, but there's no need for in-line attribution, just cite the source. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

No it is not incorrect to say "according to the official story" or "Dr. John Doe a renowned expert in the field of psychics said ". "consider using the facts mentioned" is not the same as "it is policy to use the facts mentioned". "Facts do not require in text attribution" is not the same as saying "it is prohibited to use in text attribution". There seems to be wiggle room here. Edkollin (talk) 05:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
So, are you honestly telling us that we shouldn't state facts as facts? For example, we shouldn't state that "Spain is in Europe"? Instead, we should say "According to geographers, Spain is in Europe"? That we shouldn't say that "Madrid is a the capital of Spain"? Instead, we should say, "According to political scientists, Madrid is the capital of Spain"? That when discussing the water of the Atlantic ocean, we should say that "According to oceanographers, the Atlanic ocean is made up of water"? Is that what you're seriously trying to tell us? Seriously? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
This article in particular needs to stay neutral, so it says at the very top. This article is about the diverse opinions regarding what exactly happened, how and why. As such editors should be on their very best behavior; use sources throughout and stay within the content and tone of those sources. The examples you use are not equivalent to the example of "On 9/11, terrorists attacked the US". Unomi (talk) 13:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Of course, they are. That terrorists attacked the US on 9/11 is a fact, not an opinion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Please see WP:CONTROVERSY especially the section regarding 'Attribute facts' and 'Attribute assertions'. Please also see WP:NPOV and note the section reading

and further down:

It should not be problematic for you to find a source to attribute the information you wish to see in the article, in this case. Please do so. Unomi (talk) 14:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Of course, it's easy for us to attribute the source and I always do that anyway. My point is that we don't have to say "According to so-and-so, the Spain is in Europe" and then attribute the source. Instead, we say "The Spain is in Europe" and then attribute the source. Again, these are statements of fact, not opinion. This is in line with WP:CONTROVERSY and WP:NPOV. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
It does not matter what the *truth* is, or even what the *facts* are. What matters is that it is very difficult to read the comments by Jimbo and the sections in WP:CONTROVERSY and not come to the conclusion that the *right thing* is to attribute it rather than assert it. I believe that WP:CONTROVERSY and WP:NPOV force us to attribute statements like "On 9/11, terrorists attacked the US", if the statement was in zero doubt then this article would not exist, its that simple. Unomi (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not arguing truth. That Spain is in Europe is a fact, not a statement of opinion and is backed by WP:RS. It's against NPOV to do what you're suggesting. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Do you doubt that The Protocols of The Elders of Zion is an anti-semitic forgery? No reasonable people do. Do you deny that the HIV virus is the cause of AIDS? No reasonable people do. The Queen of England is not a reptilian alien? Etc etc. And yet we document all those conspiracy theories. And there is no reasonable doubt that on 9/11, Al-Qaeda terrorists attacked the US. There is no need to attribute fact to the wide variety of sources who do not decieve themselves- or others. Nevard (talk) 16:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
There is no conclusive/photographic evidence of Al-Qaida terrorists piloting those planes into the twin towers. There is no conclusive/photographic evidence (thanks to the federal officials) of a passenger airliner striking the pentagon. There is no conclusive/photographic evidence of a passenger airliner crashing in Shanksville. If there is no conclusive evidence, it is not a fact, and we try to estimate what happened based on what we know. Why do we bother investigating a crime scene when we could just ask someone what happened and take it as fact? 213.40.129.53 (talk) 17:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


"For example, we shouldn't state that "Spain is in Europe"? Instead, we should say "According to geographers, Spain is in Europe"? "

I am not saying that at all. I am saying we should follow the policy that "consideration" should be to phrasing "facts as facts" on an article by article basis or even sentence by sentence basis.. There are places in this article where the qualifiers are needed for some the reasons stated above and some places, The Mainstream Account section comes to mind where the qualifiers are not needed. Funny AIDS was brought up . The AIDS Denialism article states in the summary "The causative role of HIV in the development of AIDS has been established by multiple lines of evidence as a subject of scientific consensus." "Denialist arguments are considered to be the result of cherry-picking and misrepresentation of predominantly outdated scientific data,". Qualifiers are used in both sentences. Edkollin (talk) 06:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't recommend any specific changes, it was just a general reminder about Wikipedia policies and guidelines as we go forward. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
:Fair enough. Edkollin (talk) 07:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
After giving this a bit more thought I have to reiterate my opposition to your example given : "According to the official story, on 9/11 terrorists attacked the US". Instead, we can plainly state the facts as facts: "On 9/11, terrorists attacked the US". The difference between this example and 'Spain is in Europe' is that there are (as far as I know) no one proposing that Spain is in fact somewhere else. For the example you have given there are plenty of sources which at the least state that there are opposing views. Our remit as wikipedia editors is to reflect sources and to give indication when and how sources conflict. Unomi (talk) 15:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Except that there is no academic debate about who carried out the attacks, no debate among experts working in their field, no mainstream sources investigating who was responsible. No notable debate at all. All you have is a time minority making noise on the Internet and media reporting on them. Mainstream media reporting on a tiny minority view is different than mainstream media reporting a genuine debate on who carried out the attacks. There is no question among reliable sources who was responsible and we can record it that way. RxS (talk) 15:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Except that there are actually at least a couple that are less than adamant. Consider sfgate], kommersant. This, btw, is somewhat offtopic but interesting reading. I think it is important to keep in mind that there is should be a difference between believing something and believing that ones belief should be stated as fact. There is absolutely no reason to not attribute the assertion. That attribution is appropriate is supported by WP:CONTROVERSY, WP:NPOV and the statements by Jimbo Wales. Unomi (talk) 18:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
How is the San Francisco Gate article less than adamant? It clearly states "Some conspiracy theories are fantastical (CIA agents orchestrated the attacks; Israel planned them.) -- the epitome of preposterous beliefs that start with a conclusion and work backward to find evidence. Each new month brings a deluge of crackpot theories, but a growing number of people say there are too many improbabilities -- too many illogical holes -- in the government's version of what happened.'"" It also states "Popular Mechanics magazine published a full-length book, "Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts," which refuted 20 claims widely held by conspiracy theorists." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
You seem to be conflating 2 separate issues invoking a false dilemma, one does not need to subscribe to 'Conspiracy Theories' to find oneself unable to make a truly informed opinion. What the sfgate does *not* do is state unequivocally what really happened, rather it clearly uses the wording Washington's version of what really happened that day. This is not to be taken as an endorsement of Conspiracy Theories, certainly that is not how I understand it, but merely the hallmark of journalistic integrity. Unomi (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
No, you're conflating two separate issues. I asked how is the San Francisco Gate article less than adamant? Do you have an answer? Not that really it matters. We're supposed to be discussing improvements to the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk)
I believe I answered that above, perhaps you are reading critique of 'conspiracy theories' as an endorsement that does not seem to be there. Unomi (talk) 23:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
No, an answer would be something like this: "The San Francisco Gate article is less than adamant because..." and then you'd give one or more reasons. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Not trying to be funny but.. I think I answered that as well, I believe they are less than adamant because of journalistic integrity.
Perhaps we should move this conversation to the mediation effort on AE for truth? Certainly this conversation here will affect that article as well, after all. Unomi (talk) 03:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Clearly there's a world of difference between "Spain is in Europe" and "terrorists attacked the U.S. on 9/11". This article should not start out by weaselly stating that "these conspiracy theorists are completely wrong". That's just too POV. A reasonable argument can be made for the 9/11 conspiracy given everything involved and the administration at the time, which was involved in numerous misdeeds. The fact that bin Laden was never caught and we entered war with Iraq when it was clear that bin Laden was in Afghanistan/Pakistan border area is obviously supportive of a conspiracy theory. II | (t - c) 19:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, no. There are few (if any) reliable sources which claim that terrorists aren't responsible for 9/11. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
To clarify, in any other article it wouldn't need to be attributed, and we could just say "terrorists attacked the U.S. on 9/11". But the purpose of this page is to show how the conspiracy theories are wrong, not just state it. Stating something rather than showing it through sources just leads to justified complaints and endless conflict. On the other hand, "planes hijacked by Muslim extremists crashed into the Twin Towers on 9/11" doesn't seem like it needs to be attributed, since I don't that's seriously contested. II | (t - c) 17:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
We can explain why insanely stupid conspiracies are wrong, but AFAIK, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, [[WP:V] and WP:RS apply to all articles. Facts should be mentioned as facts. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


Please continue discussion here Unomi (talk) 04:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as it seems like the mediator is open to helping us tackle this issue as well, I am uncollapsing the link to where the discussion is underway. Unomi (talk) 22:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

If a alleged "fact" is citably disputed is it a fact? Is it a fact that there is a dispute? 68.55.0.129 (talk) 14:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy specifically about the collapse of building 7

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I think this aspect of the controlled demolition conspiracy needs to be separate, because it cannot be as easily explained as the two first towers. The plains as recored didn't crash or project much of their force into Building 7 but did only spread some of its flames there. The unlikeliness that a normal fire on top of a steel skyscraper could cause the entire building to collapse in a free fall deserves its own topic. --Nabo0o (talk) 13:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn’t. Fires burned for hours in 7WTC. It’s not really all that incredible that it eventually collapsed. And WP has a policy against original research. But if you can find reliable sources discussing conspiracy theories relating specifically to 7WTC, then you’re on to something. — NRen2k5(TALK), 11:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, there are some reports specifically about 7 WTC such as “9/11 - The Third Tower” from the BBC and “Das Geheimnis des dritten Turms” from the German public TV station ZDF. The text on the ZDF website reads: “The mystery of the third tower. Demolition or collapse after high-rise fire? On September 11, 2001, not two towers of the World Trade center have crumbled, but three: Hours after the Twin towers, ‘WTC7’ collapsed. The tenants: CIA, Secret Service, the Ministry of Defence and the New York counter-terrorism unit.” If the World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories article gets too long, a sub-article would be appropriate.  Cs32en  13:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
That what the point I was trying to explain, and also that the incident are somewhat unrelated from the two other towers. NRen2K5, as you probably know, there has in fact been a huge fire in one of the two towers before but it was not even close at bringing it down. If you had simply read some simple facts about structural steel (no need to study several days) you would find that a free burning fire (a fire which is supplied by oxygen from the air) is wholly incapable of weakening the steel to any significant degree, and let alone lead to its collapse. Even more astonishing is the fact the all the buildings (including building 7) collapsed in a free fall, when the the fire barely strong enough to weaken the steel was in addition situated on top of the building, leaving the rest 95% or so of the towers intact. To say it straight the way it is; building 7 is a complete joke, and trying to explain it as anything else than a controlled demolition is just pathetic. So, then I guess we can move on to discuss who would have profited most on its destruction, which probably is an entirely different topic of its own. Maybe not so much encyclopedic as common sense, but I don't think that Wikipedia should act completely like a sheep on the way to slaughter just because the butcher's "recognized" report (which is the only report) says that all the sheeps leaving the slaughter house will enjoy a long and happy life in the evergreen fields.... --Nabo0o (talk) 15:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
WTC7 has seen the most amount of serious interest. It needs a dedicated paragraph or section. 213.40.113.46 (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

9/11 Dollar bill images request

Latest comment: 15 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

I would like to make my request here, for a proposal to include in the page of 9/11 conspiracy theories, the images about the dollar bill folded uploaded by me. In the total, they are 5 images, but I forgot 2 more images, but I will upload if necessary… The images are included a video post by me in Youtube.

Here is the images in sequence:

  • 9/11 Dollar Bill
  •  
    5 dollar bill folded [1]
  •  
    10 dollar bill folded
  •  
    20 dollar bill folded
  •  
    50 dollar bill folded
  • 100 dollar bill folded
    100 dollar bill folded


If the answer is Yes, i would like to make a constructive text on the subject with the help of one of the administrators.

Just to remember to all, this is not an hoax... You can do this yourself with an dollar bill...

Best regards.

and thanks for the attention. --Lightwarrior2 (talk) 18:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

How is this related to the September 11 attacks, and what is the theory associated with the image sequence?  Cs32en  18:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


These dollars bills, represent the year of manufacture in 1996... the attacks on the Twin Towers were in 2001... Only then, is a big conspiracy here...(!!!) Source about the dollars bills manufacture?!? here :History of the United States dollar. The 100 dollar series started in 1996...The final sequence,four years before... Before the attacks, we could folding the notes and then see the results... Sorry but i think this not an coincidence... I know this is a very controversial article, but i think it is part of the conspiracy, respecting the different views of all.

--Lightwarrior2 (talk) 19:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a theory here, neither a true theory nor a false theory. It's not about a conspiracy either. If this would be notable, we should rather put it in an article about “September 11 attacks and crystal balls”.  Cs32en  19:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
It sounds like WP:OR anyway. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
C´mon... it´s only a suggestion... i don´t want to publish nothing here...!! And ok!! i undertood the meaning "Crystal Balls".. ok... When i came here,I read this : " Please be neutral when editing this highly sensitive article. It discusses a topic about which people have diverse opinions." I´am not the Mr.Reason...but it was not necessary jokes...
Thanks anyway... --Lightwarrior2 (talk) 22:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
It’s a bit of a stretch. There are people to whom this represents a conspiracy. These are the same sort of people who think the pyramid and eye on US currency are a sign of a conspiracy. It’s patently absurd, but that has never been a reason for a conspiracy theorist to disbelieve a CT put in front of him. — NRen2k5(TALK), 23:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Rumors about the September 11 attacks would probably be the correct place for this content, if its notability can be evidenced by reliable sources.  Cs32en  01:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Rumors? Where’s the rumor here?   — NRen2k5(TALK), 09:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Rumors about the September 11 attacks should probably be moved to Various observations about the September 11 attacks.  Cs32en  13:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Saddam involvement as conspiracy theory

Latest comment: 15 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

An anonymous editor has introduced the claim, on the article Conspiracy theory, that the notion of the involvement of Saddam Hussein's Iraq in the 9/11 attacks has been regarded as a conspiracy theory. Is anyone on this (possibly more active) article aware of any serious discussions of that idea? --FOo (talk) 06:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks subarticle has a section on alledged Saddam involvement. Edkollin (talk) 18:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Which is hardly evidence that this alleged involvement has been regarded as a conspiracy theory. Phiwum (talk) 00:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Unless someone can find a source describing this particular idea as a conspiracy theory I recommend you remove it from that article. Hut 8.5 09:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Why would it not be a conpiracy theory?. Because it is espoused by people not associated the 9/11 truth movement?. Edkollin (talk) 05:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
We need a reference before labelling any particular theory as a conspiracy theory. Hut 8.5 07:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
It looks again like some editors may wish for a very specific function of the term "conspiracy theory" to preserved. This function comes from its multiple meanings, as seen at conspiracy theory. First, it has a purported descriptive objective function designed to categorize a theory accurately. Then, second, it has a political, judgmental, pejorative, function which allows the theory to be smeared-controversialized. The fact of the two different contradictory meanings allows opponents of 911 research (that calls into question the claims of certain parties that worked for the US government) to tarnish the 911 research by while claiming to be objective. The first meaning claims to be objective, while the second one quietly smuggles in the partisan invective (again, see WP:words to avoid). --Ihaveabutt (talk) 20:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
See conspiracy theory. The not objective smear terminology in found in mainstream media will probably be echoed in WP for a while. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 20:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories/Archive_20&oldid=1079511797"