Template talk:911ct/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

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. [1] 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:

[[Category:Social science and society navbox templates|{{PAGENAME}}]]
[[Category:"Part of a series on" templates|911tm]]

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" [[2]]. 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". [3] 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)