Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories/Archive 30

Request for Article Deletion
I believe this article should not be here. Not only is it extremely disrespectful and an absolute disgrace to the United States as a nation but also to the poor people who lost family and friends in the TERRORIST attacks of that day. I'm not saying this on bias, but it is almost mocking those whose lives have been forever changed by such a terrible happening. Besides, not a single one of these has been confirmed or accepted as true, while all official investigations have led to the proof that it was solely an attack of terrorism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.142.87 (talk) 17:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * While I agree that these conspiracy theories are complete bullshit, Wikipedia isn't censored. Hall of Jade ( お話しになります ) 19:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The article is not going to be a deleted. 9/11 conspiracy theories are a topic of note, and therefore, Wikipedia will naturally have an article on it, just as it has articles on many other topics that make people uncomfortable or that may offend them, such as JFK conspiracy theories, Moon landing conspiracy theories, Nazism, pornography, and so forth. Being offended at the mere existence of an article is not one of the criteria for deletion. If the existence of the article offends you, then I would suggest that you simply ignore it. Nightscream (talk) 03:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Dream on - this article is exactly what Wiki promotes - non-factual, anti-U.S., etc. - so it isn't going anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.129.224.141 (talk) 13:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * How is it non-factual or anti-U.S.? Can you quote the passages in question? Nightscream (talk) 17:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * No it should not be deleted!! The only people who want this deleted are the ignorant one's who dont view it with an open mind and just take information from their telly sets, these conspiracy theories have proofs from studies etc. if you dont like the article then dont come to the article, simples. 90.212.18.234 (talk) 13:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * This article is absolutely necessary, it provides documentation of research into the science and facts of historical events. People may not agree with the science or the facts, but it's a fact that this research has gone on and that there are facts that don't fit neatly with official accounts. That said, this article is so riddled with slander, innuendo and poor treatment of the facts of these alternative theories that would be amazing if anyone reading it wouldn't recognize that these efforts to provide alternative theories were being slandered. For example, multiple credible sources of eyewitness accounts and photographs validating the presence of molten metal in the subfloors of the collapsed WTC structures is completely ignored. Almost laughable is the statement: "The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) concluded the accepted version was more than sufficient to explain the collapse of the buildings" Well, since the NIST wrote the "accepted version," that's no surprise, even though it contains no discussion of how the buildings collapsed - only of the conditions leading up to the collapse. The statement "Specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering generally accept the model of a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse of the World Trade Center buildings without the use of explosives." is supported by a footnote which points to a journal article in which this statement is presented as accepted fact without any polling or research to support the statement. The famous Bažant "jolt" collapse theory has no counterweight from the more than credible refutation by  Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboti that challenges its basic assumptions directly and forcefully with both evidence and careful calculations. And so on. But the real tragedy is that the sections on media reaction and criticism are larger than any of the sections documenting the alternative theories - in other words, there's more effort to document the discrediting of these theories than there is the documentation of the theories themselves. To flip this argument on its head, if the criticism of these theories is no significant, why is there no link to this article from the main 9/11 article in Wikipedia? The Wikipedia article covering the attack on Pearl Harbor includes a reference link to the "Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge conspiracy theory" article, so this is certainly not without precedent. I respect the efforts of good and well-meaning people to contribute facts and references to this article, but Wikipedia as a whole should be ashamed at how it has turned into a vehicle for disinformation rather than a vehicle for meaningful evaluation of data, evidence and scientific evaluation. Jblossom (talk) 16:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:UNDUE would be the most relevant section; the consensus is that including this kookery in the main article on September 11th would lend undue weight to unfounded conspiracy theories. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 16:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a shame this page of misinformation is the second link when you google "9/11". But I agree with Blade to not delete it since the "real" 9/11 article will suffer. --MarsRover (talk) 23:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It would indeed be undue weight in the main article. This article is on the conspiracy theories themselves. The conspiracy theories are notable enough to merit their own article. Mystylplx (talk) 02:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The official story is the one that is disrespectful and disgraceful. Portillo (talk) 07:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 76.231.188.84, 26 September 2011
9/11 conspiracy theories question whether al-Qaeda was behind the September 11, 2011 attacks upon the World Trade Center and The Pentagon.

76.231.188.84 (talk) 04:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC) Please change September 11, 2011 to September 11, 2001, because the attacks did in fact take place in the year 2001 and not 2011


 * Wow, I wonder long it's been like that? It's fixed now. Thanks for the heads up. HiLo48 (talk) 05:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Not long; it was my mistake. Thanks for fixing it. Tom Harrison Talk 11:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Article neutrality and accuracy - the introduction
As the title is 911 conspiracy theories, the basic requirement must surely be to document ALL of them without bias or impartiality. The accepted definition of what constitutes a conspiracy theory is clear. The consensus official theory that Al-Qaeda cells alone conspired to perpetrate the attack therefore represents a conspiracy theory. Is this really open to debate? I argue it is a statement of unequivocal fact and I have provided a citation for this position. Any disagreement over that I would regard as more a matter of semantics not of WP:Undue?
 * Agree with you here. The official story itself is a conspiracy theory. The defenders of the official story just label the doubter "conspiracy theorists" as a convenient rhetoric ploy. --41.15.65.42 (talk) 08:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Basically, we can hardly have an article with the current title 911 conspiracy theories' without making the distinction clear between the official and minority theories of who conspired to implement the 911 attack.

I have now attempted to clarify all that in the intro (adding the officially accepted conspiracy theory). I've added that clarification by using a reliable secondary source, from the University of Lind, Sweden (e.g."...The second thread is the U.S. government’s explanation of the conspiracy, as the work of 19 Arab suicide bombers armed with box-cutting knives.") I therefore think my addition is in accordance with wiki policy. Can anyone explain to me otherwise. I am up for discussion on that.

My intent is to improve the article and introduction by making it more accurate and neutral. WP:NPOV"Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies, is non-negotiable and all editors and articles must follow it. So I think we have to either change the title or add something along the lines that I have which has been undone.

Finally, the statements come NOT from a 'minority view' source, but one representing the consensus viewpoint. Check out the source if you doubt this. Even if we argue that the source quotes the minority view, it still quotes a significant one and quotes a prominent exponent of it (David Ray Griffin). And anyway, this wiki article itself is specifically about a minority view. Regarding wiki policy on this: "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. I have specifically attempted to follow this policy "the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it". So to use WP:Undue as a reason for deleting my contribution strikes me as rather ironic;-) --Mystichumwipe (talk) 11:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The first sentence alone stylistically awkward and borders on polemic. Hardly an improvement. I am certain the debate of conspiracy theory semantics has been raised before, so a look into the archive and the points raised in the past seems warranted, so you may want to tackle those before these changes. For now, I suggest a revert. SK (talk) 13:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Mystichumwipe: You misunderstand WP:NPOV. NPOV requires that we report what reliable sources say about a topic without letting our own biases impact the coverage.  Since the reliable sources refer to this article's topic as a conspiracy theory, so should we.  To do anything other than that is a violation of NPOV.  Or to put it another way, we are not supposed to introduce bias to counter the bias of reliable soruces.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * To Sören: I am fine with you wanting to improve my syntax but do you not agree that in the intro we need to make the distinction clear between 1. the official consensus theory and 2. the minority theories of who conspired to implement the 911 attack?
 * To AQFK: I think I do understand NPOV. I am NOT suggesting introducing bias. The consensus view is that a conspiracy by Al Qaida operatives was behind the 9/11 attacks. Despite this well attested fact, NOWHERE in the article is that alluded to. That is the glaring omission I would like to remedy. So can I ask you to please address what I have written. We can hardly have an article with the current title 911 conspiracy theories without mentioning the official theory of who conspired to implement the 911 attack. I have provided a reliable source that details the consensus understanding of who was behind the 9/11 attacks as a Conspiracy theory. I still maintain that the article must include this somehow or NPOV is compromised and this article becomes a propaganda piece which attempts to show that the only conspiracy theories are those held by fringe nutters.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 07:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Given the specific standard that are applied to the articles on topics related to the September 11 attacks, any argument about this and similar issues will most likely not be productive. I'd recommend to focus on other issue with regard to these articles. Cs32en   Talk to me  17:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I made edits which were reverted by Arthur Rubin

The edits were for the Introduction: "(The official account also describes a conspiracy, one by Al-Qaida)," and "But see rebuttal, Popular Mechanics' Assault on 9/11 Truth at 911research.wtc7.net." In Non-cosnspiracy, the section title was changed to Atypical Alternative Explanations, and "greater" was placed in front of "conspiracy." Very innocuous and uncontraversial edits reverted without reason by an administrator yet. The article should be called Inside job and complicity theories regarding 9/11, 9/11 inside job and complicity theories, or 9/11 alternative theories.

This Wikipedia article implies there was no conspiracy in 9/11 and that there are no conspiracies period, which is the view of the anti-truth movement, or that the official version is right, which is a violation of neutrality in either case.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpell (talk • contribs)
 * I reverted your recent edits as unsuitable for an encyclopedic article. Yours, SK (talk) 14:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that "Non-Conspiracy" inaccurately reflects the 2 conspiracy theories presented in the section. I will make edits that hopefully will be more accurate. "Atypical" seems like original research or editor judgment. And I agree that somewhere there must be a reliable source that notes that the 9/11 truth movement points out the the "official explanation" is a conspiracy theory. If not in plethora of 9/11 10th anniversary coverage there might be.Edkollin (talk) 22:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The official, widely accepted "government explanation" of the 9/11 attacks is not a conspiracy theory, by definition. "A conspiracy theory is a fringe theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by exceptionally powerful and cunning conspirators to achieve a malevolent end." (emphasis added) Nandesuka (talk) 00:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia definition of "conspiracy theory" as "fringe" seems to be fringe in itself as is not backed up by the sources used nor in any of the reliable dictionary sources online. Edkollin (talk) 20:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We define it as fringe b/c it, by definition, diverts from the accepted explanation of events. In the case of 9/11 nuts, it is also preferable to refer to them as "fringe" rather than another common title "loons." Soxwon (talk) 17:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't define anything, reliable sources do that. The conspiracy article does not label them fringe like it used to, they say the theories were formally fringe but have become more mainstream although some people on the internet call them fringe. And true or not these assertions are reliable sourced. Of course you are free to find reliable sourcing that assert conspiracy theories are by nature fringe. Edkollin (talk) 21:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

"The Wikipedia definition of "conspiracy theory" as "fringe" seems to be fringe in itself..." The Wikipedia article on conspiracy theory does not indicate such theories to be fringe, in and of themselves. Even if it did, and did so without sources, the word "fringe" does not mean "not backed up by the sources", so that argument is moot. The opening passage of that article sources the definition provided there to Dictionary.com, the Mcmillian Dictionary, an article by University of Tromsø psychologist Floyd Rudmin, a book by professor emeritus of political science at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs Michael Barkun, and an article by BBC reporter Peter Knight, which are hardly "fringe" sources.

The last paragraph of that article's Lead section does indicate that conspiracy theories that were once limited to fringe audiences have become commonplace in today's mass media, and that passage is sourced to the aforementioned Barkun book, a book by Professor of History Gregory S. Camp, a book by University of Utah Professor Robert Alan Goldberg, and a book by lawyer and PhD Mark Fenster. Again, hardly "fringe" sources.
 * The Wikipedia article on CT defined it conspiracy theories as fringe theories very recently. Revision as of 13:20, 3 August 2011 "A conspiracy theory is a fringe theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by exceptionally powerful and cunning conspirators to achieve a malevolent end" When I wrote that sentence about Wikipedia definition of CT as being "fringe" that is what that was the first line I saw. Edkollin (talk) 21:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

"We don't define anything, reliable sources do that." Um, no, you're confusing WP:IRS with WP:FRINGE. WP:IRS determines criteria for sources that can used to support material included in articles. WP:FRINGE, on the other hand, is indeed the guideline by which Wikipedia defines fringe theories for its purposes, and the criteria given is that fringe theories are those that do not follow the scientific method, which has nothing to do with WP:IRS.

The assassination of Abraham Lincoln, for example is known to have been a conspiracy, because it's a question of documented historical fact that survives the historical, or empirical method. The mainstream explanation for 9/11 is a also conspiracy, because 9/11 was committed by 19 hijackers working in concert under the guidance of al Quaeda in general, and Osama bin Laden in particular. That's a conspiracy, and a documented one.

By contrast, conspiracies surrounding the Kennedy assassination, the so-called Moon Landing Hoax, and culpability for 9/11 other than al Quaeda are indeed fringe theories, because they do not abide by the scientific method. Nightscream (talk) 01:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Nightscream wrote: the criteria given is that fringe theories are those that do not follow the scientific method. WP:FRINGE says nothing about scientific method.  The first sentence in the body of WP:FRINGE does a better job of describing how Wikipedia distinguishes fringe from non-fringe:  We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field.  I agree that scientific method would be a good criteria to separate fringe from non-fringe, but in practice, that is not how it's done here.  Wikipedia relies much more heavily on authority than science.  To a considerable extent, Wikipedia treats authority as though it were science (it's not).  Wildbear (talk) 03:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Fringe theories is a content guideline meant to help editors not give undue weight to fringe theories and help editors write articles about fringe theories. I utterly fail to see how this is suggesting editors on their own to define conspiracy theories as fringe in the conspiracy theories article. Reliable sources still need to be produced as they need to be everywhere. As it says in the guideline "Reliable sources are needed for any article in Wikipedia". This is pretty straightforward. The guideline does state "Other examples include conspiracy theories and esoteric claims about medicine". Based on what is stated (as I write this) based on reliable sources in the Conspiracy Theory article the guideline is presenting a view that for the most part is dated. Edkollin (talk) 22:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "WP:FRINGE says nothing about scientific method." Letter-of-the-law hair-splitting. The guideline makes it clear that fringe theories include the following:
 * 1. Obvious pseudoscience
 * 2. Generally considered pseudoscience
 * 3. Questionable science


 * Pseudoscience, pseudohistory, etc., are those ideas that do not follow the scientific method. This is not mitigated because the phrase "scientific method" doesn't appear on the policy page. But if you insist on that line of reasoning, then it could easily be used against your argument, as in the following: WP:FRINGE says nothing about relying much more heavily on authority than science or about treating authority as though it were science.


 * "I utterly fail to see how this is suggesting editors on their own to define conspiracy theories as fringe in the conspiracy theories article." Again, the conspiracy theory article does not do this, as not all conspiracy theories are fringe theories. Did you not read my message above? Where in that article do you see it doing this? Nightscream (talk) 22:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Take a hypothetical example. It is the early 1600s and we are writing an article on Cosmology for the encyclopedia, using the policies and guidelines that we are working under now.  We know that the majority of philosophers and astronomers subscribe to the geocentric view that the Earth is at the center of the universe; and that this view is vigorously maintained by the local authority on such topics, the Catholic Church.  We also know that there is a character named Galileo who is bucking this consensus by claiming that the Earth is not at the center of the universe, based on observations through a telescope and associated calculations.  Which position is in better conformance with scientific method?  To which do we give the prominent view in the article?  Would we characterize one of these views as "fringe" or "pseudoscience", given the general consensus of the day?  If we did characterize one of these views as fringe or pseudoscience, would we be taking scientific method into account in doing so?  Wildbear (talk) 02:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Earlier in this discussion
I am reposting material from earlier in the discussion so you see 1. What editor I am having this discussion with 2. Where I got the idea that the article said CT are fringe theories Edkollin (talk) 20:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We define it as fringe b/c it, by definition, diverts from the accepted explanation of events. In the case of 9/11 nuts, it is also preferable to refer to them as "fringe" rather than another common title "loons." Soxwon (talk) 17:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't define anything, reliable sources do that. The conspiracy article does not label them fringe like it used to, they say the theories were formally fringe but have become more mainstream although some people on the internet call them fringe. And true or not these assertions are reliable sourced. Of course you are free to find reliable sourcing that assert conspiracy theories are by nature fringe. Edkollin (talk) 21:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia article on CT defined it conspiracy theories as fringe theories very recently. Revision as of 13:20, 3 August 2011 "A conspiracy theory is a fringe theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by exceptionally powerful and cunning conspirators to achieve a malevolent end" When I wrote that sentence about Wikipedia definition of CT as being "fringe" that is what that was the first line I saw. Edkollin (talk) 21:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

My bad for confusing you with somebody else. I should try to not jump in discussions that have gotten to long. Since I am confused are you advocating stating that a theory is fringe if it was deducted from psuedoscience even sans reliable source that specifically states said theory is fringe? Edkollin (talk) 20:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Wildbear: "If we did characterize one of these views as fringe or pseudoscience, would we be taking scientific method into account in doing so?" Your hypothesis is too tenuous to be anything other than moot, because Galileo himself was one of the first people to formulate the modern scientific method, and therefore, his contemporaries did not have the concept of that method, or the concept of "fringe". All they had was what was "heresy". The only thing that matters is what is considered fringe today, and by that measure, terracentricity is a pseudoscientific, and therefore, fringe idea. Galileo's are not. Nightscream (talk) 21:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Fast forward to 2009. An international team of scientists and researchers have been using their instruments to examine samples of WTC dust in microscopic detail.  They issue a report in which they claim to have found material consistent with nanothermite in the dust; a material which, if it is what they suspect it to be, should not be there.  NIST, the government organization responsible for investigation of the WTC destruction, responds to this by stating that there was no "clear chain of custody" to assure that the dust had not been subject to tampering.(ref)  This was countered with an assertion that NIST could examine samples kept under government custody, but the suggestion was ignored.  While refusing to examine this particular physical evidence, NIST attributed reliability to its own synthetic computer models, which (in the case of building 7) do not address the straight-down collapse with a free-fall component evidenced in the visual record.  I ask again:  Which position is in better conformance with scientific method? To which do we give the prominent view in article about WTC destruction?  Do we characterize one of these views as "fringe" or "pseudoscience"?  If we characterize one of these views as fringe or pseudoscience, are taking scientific method into account in doing so?  Wildbear (talk) 03:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * We're not supposed to "characterize" views at all. We're simply supposed to describe them, based on the information available to us in the reliable sources. Pursuant to the situation you describe, we can simply attribute the views or positions in question to the individuals or groups that hold them. Nightscream (talk) 15:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Good, we can agree upon what you have just stated. My original objection was to your assertion that "the criteria given is that fringe theories are those that do not follow the scientific method", which if acted upon, would imply that you most likely are making a characterization independent of reliable sources (since the sources are usually not going to delve into conformance to scientific method).  If you agree that we should not be making such a characterization independent of sourcing, then I have no further objection.  Wildbear (talk) 03:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

conspiracy theory definition
"A conspiracy theory is the idea that someone, or a group of someones, acts secretly, with the goal of achieving power, wealth, influence, or other benefit. It can be as small as two petty thugs conspiring to stickup a liquor store, or as big as a group of revolutionaries conspiring to take over their country's government."(Hodapp, Christopher; Alice Von Kannon (2008) Conspiracy Theories & Secret Societies For Dummies Wiley; pg 9)

"a conspiracy theory that has been proven (for example, that President Nixon and his aides plotted to disrupt the course of justice in the Watergate case) is usually called something else—investigative journalism, or just well-researched historical analysis." (Knight, Peter (2003) Conspiracy theories in American history: an encyclopedia, Volume 1; ABC-CLIO; ISBN 978-1-57607-812-9 pg 17)

"As a publicly known and “proven” conspiracy, Watergate has a unique status, in that it serves to validate other conspiracy theories. From the time these interconnected conspiracies became known, Watergate was the measure against which other conspiracy theories could be judged." (Knight, Peter (2003) Conspiracy theories in American history: an encyclopedia, Volume 1; ABC-CLIO; ISBN 978-1-57607-812-9 pg 730)

"Conspiracy theory is thus a bridge term--it links subjugating conceptual strategies (paranoid style, political paranoia, conspiracism) to narratives that investigate conspiracies (conspiratology, conspiracy research, conspiracy account). Conspiracy theory is a condensation of all of the above, a metaconcept signifying the struggles of the meaning of the category.  We need to recognized that we are on the bridge when we use the term." (Bratich, Jack Z. (2010) Conspiracy panics: political rationality and popular culture SUNY pg 6)

"But if a conspiracy theory is simply a theory that posits a conspiracy – a secret plan on the part of some group to influence events by partly secret means – and if a conspiracy theorist is someone who subscribes to a conspiracy theory, then the conventional wisdom itself is not just suspect, but obviously absurd."(Pigden, Charles R (2007) "Conspiracy Theories and the Conventional Wisdom" Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology Volume 4, Issue 2, Edinburgh University Press pp. 222 DOI: 10.1353/epi.2007.0017.)

"What is a conspiracy theory? The discussion so far suggests that a conspiracy theory is simply a conspiratorial explanation, and that an explanation is conspiratorial if it postulates a group of agents working together in secret, often, though perhaps not always, for a sinister purpose." (Coady, David Conspiracy theories: the philosophical debate Ashgate Publishing Page 2) later on page 140 Coady reiterates that at its most basic level a conspiracy theory is the theory of a conspiracy.

Keeley, Brian L. Of Conspiracy Theories Journal of Philosophy (March, 1999) pg 109-126 reprinted as chapter 4 of David Coady's Conspiracy theories: the philosophical debate tries to makes a distinction between warranted conspiracy theories "(say, those explaining Watergate)" and unwarranted conspiracy theories (UCT) "(say, theories about extraterrestrials abducting humans)".

A conspiracy theory in of itself is not fringe and Peter Knight's Conspiracy theories in American history presented the following warranted conspiracy theories: Sicilian Mafia (pg 451), Project MKULTRA (pg 490), Operation Mockingbird (pg 486), Watergate (pg 725), Tuskegee syphilis experiment (pg 38, 45, 538), Operation Northwoods (pg 117), Iran-Contra Affair (pg 349), CIA drug trafficking (pg 237), Business Plot (pg 625), and Operation Gladio (pg 231).

Similarly, the conspiracy theory that the Nazis were the ones who set the Reichstag fire is very popular even among serious scholars (Davidson, Eugene (2004) The Unmaking of Adolf Hitler University of Missouri Press pg 457)

If this is truly an article on "9/11 conspiracy theories" then per the above both warranted and unwarranted conspiracy theories need to be dealt with.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In Wikipedia the theories have to not just warranted or unwarranted but notable the theory has to come from a lot more then one guy and his website. I don't know how warranted and unwarranted would help with the recent issue of should we only deal with conspiracies theories dealing with the 9/11 attacks or should we also deal with allegations of coverup to hide incompetence. Be that as it may what theories do you believe have not been dealt with that should be? Edkollin (talk) 22:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Does controversial material about a living person require a court order or just a reliable source to mention it on Wikipedia?
Information published in a book by John Farmer, who was the Senior council for the 911 Commission, Attorney General of New Jersey, and Dean of Rutgers School of Law, has been removed from the 9/11 conspiracy theories article as a violation wp:blp because it suggests the Bush administration lied to cover up incompetence. Arthur Rubin claims Farmer is not a reliable source unless there's a court ruling to back up what he said. The text in the article made it clear that these were Farmers words and was not bluntly put in the voice of Wikipedia. Mystylplx (talk) 17:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * (RFC resolved, simple rephrasing is all that's required.)
 * The text in the article did not make it clear that "these were Farmers words"; if that's made clear, and we only use what the book reviews said the words were, rather than attempting to interpret the book ourselves, that that would be acceptable under WP:BLP, even if not easily distinguishable from WP:GOSSIP. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

"In his 2009 book The Ground Truth: The Untold Story of America Under Attack on 9/11 John Farmer Jr., senior counsel to the 9/11 commission, previous attorney general of New Jersey, and dean of the Rutgers School of Law, wrote that the staff of the 9/11 commission concluded that the Bush Administration's description of events on the morning of 9/11 was “almost entirely and, inexplicably, untrue.” The staff believed that the cover-up involved classifying information and having politicians and military officials lie to the commission. These lies were repeated in news reports and official histories of 9/11. The book does not lay out a specific alternate theory but its extensive reconstruction of events discusses incompetence and much more extensive prior warnings than were revealed."


 * That is the text that was removed. Notice one of the sources is the NY Times. Another is The Globe and Mail I don't see how it's not clear those are Farmers words. The entire section is about what he wrote in his book. Mystylplx (talk) 20:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * And we don't even know Farmer even used the work 'liar', which means this could be BLP violation against Farmer, too. Does anyone have a copy of this book?  Does anyone know Farmer even used this word?  If so, how did he use it? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, no. In the section, the first and last sentences say they were attributed to Farmer, but not the middle two.  And the word "lie" is not in either book review, except in the title.  As we all know, titles are not reliable.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the word "lie" isn't used, but the words "deception," and "orchestrated mendacity" are both used in direct quotes of Farmer. I have no problem rewriting it without the use of that specific word. Mystylplx (talk) 22:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * As I said yesterday, the verbiage can probably be fixed, but since this has nothing to do with conspiracy theories, the point is moot. If it helps, think of conspiracy theories as sort of like urban legends.  I'm not saying that Farmer can't be included somewhere in Wikipedia, but this isn't the right article.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out above, not all conspiracy theories are urban legends. See Websters. In this case the "set of circumstances" would be the cover-up of the facts leading up to 911. Mystylplx (talk) 23:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Urban legends are untrue by definition. While it may be the case that most conspiracy theories are untrue, that's not a part of the definition. A conspiracy theory could be true and still be a conspiracy theory. Mystylplx (talk) 23:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. Conspiracies and conspiracy theories are two different things.  For example, Watergate was a conspiracy.  The Roswell UFO incident is a conspiracy theory.  That the Nixon adminstration conspired to cover up the break-in is a mainstream viewpoint.   Roswell is fringe theory.   The first is accepted in academia.  The second is not.  I wasn't sure if you understood the difference so what I said was to think of conspiracy theories as something similar to urban legends.  If this comparison wasn't helpful, you can just ignore the comparison.  The bottom line is that this is the wrong article to include Farmer.  As far as I know, he's not advocating a conspiracy theory and the source you cite doesn't label it as a conspiracy theory either.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand that once proven the word "theory" is generally dropped. That's the difference. And Farmers allegations are certainly fringe. Mystylplx (talk) 00:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Have any of the staff agreed with his claims of their options? The original header was undue, as a minimum the content needed a good write to clarify exactly what it was and the comments that it is not really a conspiracy theory seems correct - it just seem more like a debunking of the conspiracy theories - asserting it was just people covering their ass so to speak. 911_Commission - Farmer was also only a staff worker and not a member . Off2riorob (talk) 14:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It is my edit, did not know a raging controversy evolved over it while I was enjoying my weekend. I am trying to figure who is the living person who is possible being falsely accused is?. Nobody is specifically named in the article. While I get what you are saying that it is not literally a "9/11 conspiracy theory" it falls under the definition of 9/11 conspiracy theories presented in the "Non LIHOP/MIHOP" subsection of the "Types of Criticism" section specifically "There have been allegations that official reports have covered up incompetence or negligence from U.S. personnel or the Bush Administration". The allegation specifically claims that the Bush Administrations "official story" is likely untrue which is a major subject of the article. (Whether it should be or Non MIHOP/LIHOP section should be there is a broader and probably separate discussion). Another objection was that I should have in every sentence stated that it was Farmer making the statements. I think that is overkill but be that as it may, if you object to the wording of something then reword so it is better, don't delete the whole thing. Another objection is that this was the wrong location. If you are deleting for that reason mention in the edit summary with possible a suggestion of a better location Edkollin (talk) 23:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd say the idea that it is a BLP violation was the weakest (virtually preposterous) argument. I put the RfC when Arthur Rubin, an admin, reverted it as a violation of BLP and stated it would require a court finding to justify inclusion. He's since toned down the rhetoric so I think it's safe to say we can throw the BLP objection out the window. It was nonsensical to start with.
 * The better argument against is that it's not a conspiracy theory and so doesn't belong on this page. If I understand him A Quest For Knowledge seems to be arguing that if it's not whacko it's not a conspiracy theory. Personally I don't buy that at all and I think you covered pretty well why it does fit on the page. I'll leave it at that. Mystylplx (talk) 04:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Arthur Rubin is correct in as far as the extract reads to me as if the sentence beginning "These lies..." is also in the editorial voice. It is however not clear where the distinction between legitimate criticism of events surrounding 11 September and conspiracy theories lies, and I am fairly certain that some popular works on the subject confuse, conflate and mix the two with glorious abandon.
 * Careful rewording of the text seems all that is needed to resolve this, there fore I am removing the rfc tag.Rich Farmbrough, 10:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC).


 * Regarding the theory concern, the last revision I saw wasn't claiming to be a theory but a cover-up allegation. Therefore, avoiding the content because it's not a theory ain't a valid argument either, although the paragraph does need rewording if it's restored.     ~ AdvertAdam   on-mobile  07:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Lying to the 9/11 Commission
I've removed this from the article for the following two reasons:
 * First, it's a WP:BLP violation. We shouldn't be using the term 'lying' in Wikipedia's voice.  Yes, I know that the person who wrote the Toronto Globe and Mail article used those words.  But we shouldn't do that here.  Yes, it can probably be rephrased and possibly fixed, but there's a second issue which makes the BLP concerns moot.
 * I haven't read the book but after reading the cited source, Farmer's thesis doesn't seem to have anything to do with conspiracy theories at all. Yes, there's an offhand reference to conspiracy theories towards the end of the cited source.  But if you look at that carefully, the Toronto Globe and Mail article is disagreeing with Farmer saying that he goes too far, and compares his Farmer's methodology with the conspiracy theorist's methodology.  Big difference.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I put it back. I don't see how it's a BLP violation or how it's in Wikipedias voice when it specifically attributes what is said to the source. I do agree though, that the cited source should be Farmers book and not an article about it. I think this is notable and, ironically, could be the one section of this article that isn't completely nutjob. (No offense intended to the nutjobs...:) Mystylplx (talk) 03:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Can we please follow WP:BRD? It was boldly added it and I reverted it.  We should discuss it on the talk page before adding back to the article.
 * It's a WP:BLP violation because we are accusing a living person of lying. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist.  The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material.  Please do not do this again.
 * Second, neither Farmer's book nor the cited news article seem to have anything to do with 9/11 conspiracy theories. We seemed to have found a source about Farmer's book which compared Farmer's methodology to that the methodology of a conspiracy theorist (which one they do not say) and seem to have concluded that it has something to with 9/11 conspiracy theories.  The news article also compare's Farmer's methodology to Columbo.  But that doesn't mean Farmer's book is about Columbo.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * See What bold, reverse, diuscuss, is NOT.. Also this. And third, Farmers book ( at least the parts quoted) most certainly are about 911 conspiracy theories. It's not the standard fare for 911 conspiracy theories, crazy nuts with whacko theories, but it's a conspiracy theory in that he more than strongly suggests that Bush lied. And the source is not some nobody but was senior council to the 911 Commission--that's notable! AND a WP:RS if there ever was one. This is a no-brainer. This article is about 911 Conspiracy Theories and this may be the one and only one that has some real credibility to it. The BLP argument is nonsensical--read WP:BLP. It's sourced to a reliable (very reliable) source and is characterized as his words, not Wikipedias. And it CLEARLY deserves space in an article about 911 conspiracy theories. It's not even a close call. Mystylplx (talk) 05:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Essentially this was added by one editor. Reverted by you. Then re-reverted by me. This isn't even really covered by WP:BRD. But the BLP claim is nonsensical. BLP doesn't say we can't publish any information that might be controversial period--it says we don't publish it unless there's a reliable source. And again--Senior Council to the 911 Commission John Farmer, Jr.. Mystylplx (talk) 06:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * OK. By no stretch of the imagination is this a BLP violation. That's completely imaginary and irrational. It's not even a close call. See wp:blp for more info. ::::::According to that policy it must adhere to :
 * Neutral point of view (NPOV)
 * Verifiability (V)
 * No original research (NOR)


 * This certainly fits that criteria. So I'm wondering what's going on here. There's no way, shape, or form, in which this violates BLP. That's pure fiction. Yet it's been reverted twice as a BLP violation.... What's the real story? I'm certainly no 911 truther or POV pusher, so clue me in? What's the deal? Mystylplx (talk) 06:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, it is a clear WP:BLP violation. It accuses a living person of lying.  Unless there is actually a relevant court ruling to that effect, (see Bill Clinton), it's controversial.  That, therefore, requires a reliable source.  Farmer, himself, and his source, are not reliable for that purpose; it has to be from a reliable publisher.  I see no evidence of that, here, although it might be the case.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm going to bed soon, but I wanted to try to answer at least one of your questions before I do. Now that I know what angle this is coming from, there are two forms of CT:
 * LIHOP ("Let it happen on purpose") – That key individuals within the government had foreknowledge and let them happen anymay
 * MIHOP ("Make/Made it happen on purpose") - That key individuals within the government planned the attacks and collaborated with, or framed, al-Qaeda in carrying them out.
 * We seem to inventing a third category of CT that the government tried to cover up its incompetence after the fact. This is not a conspiracy theory.  Legitimate criticism of the US governemt regarding 9/11 doesn't belong in this article.  It should go in some other article.  In my absense, it appears that somehow the article shifted focus to include any criticism  - whether conspiracy theory or not.  I see that there's now a section for "Non LIHOP/MIHOP".  I doubt if such a thing even exists.  It should probably be deleted.  Going to bed now.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 08:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * @Arthur Rubin With all due respect I think you're just making stuff up. I've read and re-read wp:blp and I see nothing in there about requiring a court order. Farmer is certainly a reliable source.
 * @A Quest For Knowledge, I see what you're saying and you might have a point, but I do think a conspiracy to cover up incompetence is still a 911 conspiracy--it's just not the standard whacko conspiracy theory that one normally thinks of when using the phrase "911 conspiracy theory." Mystylplx (talk) 16:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Mystylplx: There's a world of difference between wacko conspiracy theories and real conspiracies. Watergate was a real conspiracy.  Aliens landing at Roswell is not.  We shouldn't lump the two together.  I'm not saying that Farmer can't be included somewhere in Wikipedia, but this isn't the right article.  This article is only about the crazy stuff.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * That's where I disagree, or at least I don't think it's necessary that this article be "only about the crazy stuff." This is similar to your LIHOP-- just without claiming that it was "on purpose." The section could even be expanded a bit with this from CBS news and plenty of other sources that go into what the Bush administration knew and what was (and was not) done about it. It seems to me this article is the appropriate place for stuff like that as I doubt it's feasible to start a new article titled Non-whacko 9/11 conspiracy theories. Mystylplx (talk) 18:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems like the place to mention it would be Criticism of the 9/11 Commission. Tom Harrison Talk 18:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It isn't criticism of the 911 commission... Mystylplx (talk) 18:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * But I do see September 11 attacks advance-knowledge debate where it would be appropriate. Mystylplx (talk) 18:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not clear to me based on the news article who exactly is making the accusation of lying. The author of the book is John Farmer.  The author of The Globe and Mail news story is Peter Hart.  We can obviously tell that Hart uses that word.  But just because Hart used it, doesn't necessary mean Farmer did.  Does anyone have access to the book?  Does Farmer actually use this word?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "almost entirely and, inexplicably, untrue.” is in quotes. That usually means it's a direct quote. If the word "lie" is the stumbling block it could be rewritten without that word. Mystylplx (talk) 19:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, although Farmer is an expert, we cannot use his word to support a controversial statement about a living person. On the other hand, if The Globe and Mail is considered a WP:RS, and it quotes Farmer, we can use it to support that Farmer said it was a lie.  I'm not sure that "Farmer wrote that the Bush Administration statements were false." is sufficiently distinct from gossip that it's usable, but we must make it clear that that is all we are saying.   We could remove the "Farmer wrote" clause only if Riverhead Books is a reliable publisher, regardless of any individual reliability Farmer might have.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm really confused on where you're coming from on this. First of all "if The Globe and Mail is considered a WP:RS"??? It's the New York Times of Canada. Second, I don't think anyone wants to remove the "Farmer wrote" clause. The whole section is on what he wrote. Mystylplx (talk) 20:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, the word 'lie' is a huge stumbling block. We don't call people liars.  A direct quote is better.  But it still doesn't have anything to do with this article.  If it helps, think of conspiracy theories as sort of like urban legends.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There's already this, this, and this, none of which are really whacko. And Conspiracy theories needn't be urban legends--there have been lots of conspiracy theories that turned out to be true. See The Dreyfus Affair and MKULTRA as two examples. Just because the allegations in this case come from a credible source doesn't mean it's not a conspiracy theory. The idea that the Bush administration was... disingenuous? about the events leading up to 911 seems to me to fit well on this page. Mystylplx (talk) 23:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like we need a citation to a reliable source that says this is a conspiracy theory. Tom Harrison Talk 11:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What's the difference between a cover-up and a conspiracy? If the Bush administration is trying to conceal information from the public, that's a cover-up. Conducting a cover-up is a conspiracy to mislead the public. Ghostofnemo (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

No it is not. The two words do not mean the same thing. A conspiracy requires a minimum of two or more persons. A cover-up can be conducted by one person. Even if a cover-up is conducted by multiple persons, the two words emphasize different things, even if a given act can be both. Nightscream (talk) 17:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless Bush is able to conduct the cover-up by himself, it's a conspiracy. Ghostofnemo (talk) 20:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

YouTube video in Pentagon section
The video does not contain a single frame showing a plane. And what are the technical specs of the camera making the recording? How many frames per second? The passing car suggests a pretty low frequency. Why is this video included in this article? Is this video supposed to support 9/11 conspiracy theories? &#9798; CUSH &#9798; 00:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Which citation is it? Nightscream (talk) 10:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * What is it that you ask? There is only one video. &#9798; CUSH &#9798; 19:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of "new Pearl Harbor" line
If you think this belongs somewhere else (not with the line discussing possible motives in the opening paragraph) then why not move it where you think it belongs instead of completely deleting it from the article? Diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories&diff=469103181&oldid=469102671 Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If it belongs anywhere, it's in the motives section. And, lo and behold, there it is! SK (talk) 11:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't realize that "Pax Americana" was Latin for "new Pearl Harbor". Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A better heading for that section might be "Neoconservatives and global hegemony" or something like that. Ghostofnemo (talk)


 * Looks like a good delete. Our job here is to try to present a neutral article.  The change only contains the CT's POV.  There appears to be no attempt to explain any other POV but the CT's.  That's not what neutrality is at all. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Lede no longer explains majority viewpoint
I just noticed that the lede is terribly unbalanced. It no longer explains the majority viewpoint. I checked with previous versions: And all three contained a short, 2 sentence paragraph containing the mainstream viewpoint. Does anyone know who or why this was deleted? Was there even a discussion? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Febuary 2011
 * March 2010
 * November 13, 2009


 * This was awhile ago but what I remember is the lede was ballooning and another editor said in their edit summary something along lines of this has gotten out of control. So I changed it with the goal of making it much more concise and focused. Don't remember any big discussion or anybody reverting my changes off hand.


 * This is a 9/11 CT's article not a mainstream viewpoint article. The lede's goal should be to describe what 9/11 CT's are and briefly explain them. The "mainstream" POV is not ignored, it is described in part of the very first sentence and the very first section both describes and explains the mainstream POV. In the same vain why is 1/2 of the first paragraph about polls? If it has to be in the lede it should be a short sentence but I don't see the need for it at all as they are a reaction to the CT's not the theories themselves. While not absolutely necessary it is probably ok that motives are there because they are the alleged cause for the alleged chain of events, but again just one sentence saying proponents cite various motives is all that is needed. Edkollin (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Not to bog down in semantics, but this is a mainstream-viewpoint article - that's the only kind of article we have. It describes (should describe) the mainstream view about 9/11 conspiracy theories by presenting what the reliable secondary sources say about 9/11 conspiracy theories. To do that well, we have to say briefly what happened on September 11. To the extent that this article has developed as a pov fork of September 11 attacks, it needs to be corrected. Tom Harrison Talk 13:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * @Edkollin: There was no discussion probably because nobody noticed the change. I know that I didn't notice it until a couple days ago.  All articles are mainstream articles.  Yes, because this is an article about 9/11 conspiracy theories, we should explain what those theories are, but we still should do it from the perspective of the mainstream viewpoint.  As for the polls, I agree that it doesn't belong in the lede.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Lede before reorganization

"On the morning of September 11, 2001, al-Qaeda crashed United Airlines Flight 175 and American Airlines Flight 11 into the twin towers of the World Trade Center, and crashed American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon. The impact and resulting fires caused the collapse of the Twin Towers and the destruction and damage of other buildings in the World Trade Center complex. The Pentagon was severely damaged by the impact of the airliner and the resulting fire. The hijackers also crashed a fourth plane into a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania after the passengers and flight crew attempted to regain control of the aircraft.[1][2] Published reports and articles by the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the magazine Popular Mechanics, and the mainstream media accept that the impacts of jet aircraft at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires, rather than controlled demolition, led to the collapse of the Twin Towers.[3][4] Zdeněk Bažant and Mathieu Verdure, writing in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, propose that collapse can be triggered if the total internal energy loss during the crushing of one story exceeds the kinetic energy impacted to that story.[5]

The 9/11 Commission Report disclosed prior warnings of varying detail of planned attacks against the United States by al-Qaeda. The report said that the government ignored these warnings due to a lack of communication between various law enforcement and intelligence personnel. For the lack of inter-agency communication, the report cited bureaucratic inertia and laws passed in the 1970s to prevent abuses that caused scandals during that era. The report faulted the Clinton and the Bush administrations with “failure of imagination”. Most members of the Democratic and the Republican parties applauded the commission's work.[6]

Proponents of various 9/11 conspiracy theories, which are, according to the director of the Anti-Defamation League’s civil rights division, Deborah Lauter, in many cases antisemitic,[7][8] offer versions of the events that differ from what is described above. Conspiracy theorists say this is because of inconsistencies in the official conclusions or some evidence that was overlooked.[9][10][11] Researchers say motives for constructing conspiracy theories include the desire for financial gain, scapegoating, and a psychological need for a satisfying explanation.[12]

The most prominent conspiracy theory is that the collapse of the World Trade Center and 7 World Trade Center were the result of a controlled demolition rather than structural weakening due to fire.[13][14] Another prominent belief is that the Pentagon was hit by a missile launched by elements from inside the U.S. government[15][16] or that a commercial airliner was allowed to do so via an effective standdown of the American military.[17][18] Motives cited by conspiracy theorists include justifying the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and geostrategic interests in the Mideast, including pipeline plans launched in the early 1990s by Unocal and other oil companies.[19]

Polls worldwide show substantial minorities believe Al Queda was not responsible for the attacks and a slight majority of Americans find fault with the 9/11 commission and U.S governments investigations of the attack[20] [10][21]"

An editor made a change noting in his edit summary that "this is unbelievable". I agreed because the first half was just describing the "mainstream" version 9/11 attacks and repeating what was in the mainstream section. I also felt having an agenda organization in the lede describing the theories as in many cases anti Semitic made the lede not neutral. When I was done the lede looked similar to now without the last paragraph that was just added. So in my POV it was a radical change and the last thing that I expected is that my changes would not be noticed.

I agree it is a mainstream article that why I think too much time weight is given to motives and polls.

Tentative Proposal/rough draft sans citing and links.

"9/11 conspiracy theories are theories that disagree with the widely accepted account that the September 11 attacks were perpetrated solely by al-Qaeda using hijacked planes as missiles creating fires that weakened the structures of the Twin Towers and World Trade Center 7 causing their collapse.

The most prominent conspiracy theory is that the World Trade Center buildings collapse was caused at least in part by controlled demolitions. Other prominent theories state that the Pentagon was hit by a missile launched by elements from inside the U.S. government instead of a hijacked plane or that the American military stood down.

Proponents of the conspiracy theories believe there have been inconsistencies in the official conclusions and that evidence were overlooked. Justifying subsequent military action and profit are among the various alleged motives cited for the alleged conspiracies. Scientific, government and media critics of the theories have stated that the theories are scientifically invalid and proponents have been affected by conspiracism.

This answers the consensus for a mainstream point of view (I believe it is a bit more mainstream POV then what exists) while keeping the who for the detail sections. It is a rough draft and thus inelegant.Edkollin (talk) 00:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

ZDF Online Poll
Under the History section, the results of a "ZDF online poll" are included. The results of this poll should should be removed. An online poll is a completely unscientific poll you can find on virtually any website. Per the article, ZDF ran a "documentary" advocating that 9/11 was an inside job, and then had a poll asking people if they though 9/11 was an inside job. The results of this poll were hardly shocking (and, again, completely unscientific.) JoelWhy (talk) 14:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed Edkollin (talk) 02:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  02:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Susan Lindauer shoot down
Susan Lindauer is asserting a youtube video that she had been told at some point that Flight 93 was shot down and that the pilot who shot it down was / is held in Florida somewhere. I'm planning on looking into her article and am curious if anyone has come across any other statements / theories like this ... or has seen the evidence / names she promises to provide in this video.--Senor Freebie (talk) 07:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Susan Lindauer was found incompetent to stand trial twice, and is pretty well known for delusional thinking and other wingnuttiness. I'd take anything she says with a big grain of salt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.135.91 (talk) 01:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theories are not denialism
I totally understand if people don't believe in the theories, I don't completely believe in them, I'm undecided; but to say 9/11 Truth is denialism, you know, putting it in the same category as the Flat Earth Society and Holocaust denial, in my opinion, is ridiculous. If you didn't notice, the 'criticism' section of this article says virtually nothing about criticizing the claims that 9/11 truthers make. So what if Popular Mechanics accepts the official story? Do you really think any mainstream publication is going to deny what the United States Government says? No of course not.

I think criticism of the official story of September 11 and skepticism of Bin Laden's involvement is not denialism, but true skepticism in action. Not just blind defence of the establishment.

Thank you for reading this.

Abootmoose (talk) 17:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The people who believe in holocaust denial, moon landing hoax, and/or the belief that aliens landed at Roswell make the exact same argument for their pet theory. However, when you have a belief that is soundly contradicted by the evidence, it squarely falls within the category of denialism.JoelWhy (talk) 17:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think there is a serious problem if you think 9-11 conspiracy theories are equivalent to any of those theories. The problem with the term denialism is it implies that something about the official version is beyond question, which would be true for some things related to 9/11 conspiracy theories, but not all. Any category with the pseudo- prefix creates a similar problem in stating the account is false. Just because a theory is fringe does not mean it should be regarded as false. The conspiracy theory and fringe theory categories are perfectly fine. I also think the conspiracy theories involving Jews categories are inappropriately prejudicial. What I would support is the 9/11 CT category, the CT category, and the fringe category.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 18:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I do think 911 conspiracy theories are roughly equivalent to those others. They all attempt to deny the reality of something that happened, or assert the reality of something that didn't happen. They all have complicated rationales that don't hold up under scrutiny. They all cherry-pick evidence and make false claims. The main point is that none of them are accepted among reliable sources, and what we do here is report on what those reliable sources say. Mystylplx (talk) 18:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What I understand is that there are people who think all fringe views are the same and regularly lump them together, but it just isn't accurate. Someone who seriously thinks the earth is flat would not be the intellectual equivalent of someone who thinks the government knowingly allowed the 9/11 attacks to occur. One requires a complete rejection of known facts, the other only requires skepticism about the statements of living people.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 20:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand that, and to be honest I wouldn't put the LIHOP theories in the same category as moon hoaxers and flat earthers. Those theories actually have some sound basis. But unfortunately those comprise the minority, or at most a very quiet majority, of 911 conspiracy theorists. Mystylplx (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I've always had the feeling that LIHOP isn't a real theory, that it's just a gateway conspiracy theory to get people to listen to the more insane CTs. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know about that. We know that they knew an attack was imminent. We know that when the same thing happened during the Clinton administration he jumped on it with both feet, held daily special meetings bringing together the heads of the various intelligence agencies, etc., and that Bush, by contrast, didn't hold one single extra meeting. That much is on the public record. From there LIHOP is an obvious speculation. I've had the thought that it's the other way around--that the MIHOP theories were a smokescreen, intentionally or unintentionally, that did a good job of keeping the public's attention diverted from the above facts. Either way though, it's the MIHOP theories that are the bread and butter of 911 truthers and those theories certainly count as denialism. Mystylplx (talk) 21:21, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not here to make judgments of fact or fiction. The mainstream view is, in many ways, a very good theory. A position disagreeing with that mainstream view is not inherently denialist. A MIHOP theory isn't inherently less reasonable than a LIHOP theory. Talk about remote-controlled airliners and cruise missiles is certainly bordering on it, but ultimately the evidence does not sufficiently establish that this did not happen for us to treat it as a denial of fact. However, a MIHOP theory can take on other ideas and exclude those more questionable ones as many have.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * None of the MIHOP theories I have heard are even remotely possible. All of them, in their various ways, are on the level of the hologram planes version, just not so obviously so in some cases. Mystylplx (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * That is because you have little imagination and apparently little relevant scientific knowledge. The controlled demolition theory far better explains what was observed than the NIST conspiracy which is frankly scientifically impossible. As regards the logistics of carrying it out, here is a hypothetical scenario demonstrating how it might be carried out with only a few people being aware of exactly what was going on. I imagine those so inclined can think of other ways. Devils Advocate1000 (talk) 16:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not what the experts say. Mystylplx (talk) 17:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * 9/11 conspiracy theories definitely fall under the category of denialism. AFAIK, there are few, if any, historians would believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories.  Also, I find Abootmoose's statement that "Do you really think any mainstream publication is going to deny what the United States Government says? No of course not." to be ironic. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I would really like some more opinions on this. I agree, it is a fringe theory, though a very popular fringe theory. Calling it denialism is just plain wrong though. I admit, there are holes in the 9/11 truth theories - but do you really, honestly believe the 9/11 commission report is perfectly satisfactory, and that the US government had no idea what was going on? People like you guys who want to label this denialism, and also classify it as an anti-Jewish conspiracy, when the Jewish thing is just ONE of many many inside job theories, are very biased. I am a skeptical person. I don't buy 9/11 truth entirely. But at the same time, I have read tons about 9/11 and there are many, many things that do not add up about what we are being told.

Personally I find the Wiki policy of verifiability before truth BS. But, I don't own Wikipedia, so there's nothing I can do about it, unfortunately. If we lived in Nazi Germany (sorry to invoke Godwin's Law, lol) according to that policy we would have to accept Nazi references as legit because of their 'officiality' even if they were complete lies.

Wikipedia does not need to bow to authority and simply be told what they are heard. We just had a historical blackout of the site, to protest SOPA. How hard really is it to believe that the government that would consider such an oppressive law would commit something like 9/11? You guys tell me to get my tin foil hat off. I tell you to stop blindly waving your flag.

Six years ago, when the 9/11 truth movement was much stronger, and people hadn't had the idea that 'Mooslims did it' beaten into their head for a full decade yet, the editors here would not have insulted people who dare to question the 9/11 OS. (Because if you're a good American, you never question anything, right?

Frankly my issue is I just find the categorization insulting. Academically speaking, to label a group deniers is a HUGE charge.

Abootmoose (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No one here is telling you to take off your tinfoil hat. Believe whatever you like. However, to post information on Wikipedia, you must follow certain rules and policies (e.g. reliable sources, etc.) There are a plethora of sites you can contribute to where claims can be made based on suspect sources. Wikipedia, however, is not one of them.JoelWhy (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

^Well personally, I would consider anything from the United States government in the past fifty years a 'suspect source' lol. America is not infallible, America is not God. Abootmoose (talk) 20:01, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see the Wiki page on Straw man arguments.JoelWhy (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

^Sorry, I just got a bit passionate. What I'm saying is what composes a reliable source is to large extent, a matter of opinion. Abootmoose (talk) 20:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps this will help: Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia. We write articles from the mainstream point of view. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

^Okay. But still, I think labelling 9/11 truth as denialism is insulting for one, and incorrect for another. Just because it's not the mainstream POV, doesn't make it a form of denialism. Denialism encompasses absurd, impossible claims. Even if you think a non-Muslim explanation of 9/11 is unlikely, it's definitely nowhere close to Flat Earth impossible. I think the 'pseudohistory' and the other pseudo tag are wrong too. They are what I call judgment categories. Abootmoose (talk) 20:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Flat earthers are an extreme version of denialism. I don't think anyone is saying that believing 9/11 was an inside job is the "same" as believing the world's scientists are trying to hide the fact that the earth is flat. However, denialism is a broad term encompassing a wide range of ideas. Believing that vaccines cause autism falls into the category of denialism. Clearly, such a claim is more believable (albeit equally unsupported by science) than that the earth is flat. The term is not intended to be insulting. It is simply noting that belief in such a claim involves a rejection of substantial objective evidence to the contrary.JoelWhy (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

But where is the proof that 1) Bin Laden was the mastermind of 9/11 and that 2) Bush and everyone else in our government were completely taken by surprise? Abootmoose (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That is part of why I think 9/11 CTs in general should not be regarded the same way as various pseudoscientific claims. Many "skeptics" treat this like it is purely a scientific issue, when it really is more of a criminal question. Save for the fringe among fringe no-plane theories, most of what is mentioned by 9/11 conspiracists does not challenge any aspect of existing scientific knowledge or postulate any new scientific principle. A number of theories do not even seriously challenge the physical evidence, but focus more on motive, means, and opportunity. Given that even people involved with the 9/11 Commission have expressed suspicions of Saudi support it would be silly to have the conspiracy theories regarded the same way as claims about vaccines.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 21:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually all the MIHOP theories I've ever heard are patently impossible. Whether you believe in silent explosives or that hundreds of tons of nano-thermite were brought into the buildings (occupied 24/7) and secretly planted exactly where the planes would hit (yet somehow not set off by the exploding jet fuel) it's closer to believing the moon landing was a hoax than that vaccines cause autism. And as I said, it's the MIHOP theories which make up the bulk of 911 conspiracy theories. Mystylplx (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, when you blatantly exaggerate what conspiracy theorists claim you can convince anyone that it's impossible. You also are presuming that all MIHOP theories are about controlled demolition, which simply isn't true. There is more than one way to stage a terrorist attack, if you will. One would be the much-approved method of not actually staging it, but just insuring that it occurs. Like the Nazis did, you find someone you know wants to do something and then make sure he is miles more successful than he would be if you did not help. Call it glorified entrapment. Polling suggests there are far more people who subscribe to that sort of view, one of criminal facilitation, than controlled demolition. Does that really seem more outlandish than vaccines causing autism? It certainly isn't pseudoscientific.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think I'm exaggerating at all. Do a search on "911 truth" and the vast bulk of what you will find will be either explosives or nano-thermite (which would have required hundreds of tons, even according to Neils Harrit) Any MIHOP theories that aren't about controlled demolition are fringe even within the 911 "truth" movement. What polls are you referring to, because the odd mixture of MIHOP and LIHOP you are expressing is a new one on me and I thought I'd heard them all. Mystylplx (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * How is it that their opinions criticizing the official theory are treated with such skepticism yet their opinions about what their theories would require are given such weight? I look at the NIST report that says a hundred pounds of regular thermite might be sufficient to bring down a building column. As to the polls I am talking about, the ones I looked at were here on Wikipedia. Most reliable sources mention this idea of a government aiding the attacks in the context of a foreign power like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, or some alliance of them and other Muslim states friendly to the U.S. It isn't quite as common to mention the possibility of the U.S. being an active participant without going into the controlled demolition stuff, though there are certainly plenty of major sources alleging a cover-up of the connection to U.S. allies. All the same, these are generally regarded as conspiracy theories just like the claims of the Loose Change crowd, yet there is nothing pseudoscientific or denialist about them. I could get into a very long WP:NOTFORUM discussion about this, but the point is that there are many prominent MIHOP conspiracy theories discussed significantly in independent reliable sources that have nothing to do with remote-controlled airliners or nano-thermite so using the latter to impugn the former is inappropriate, even if the latter were pseudo-scientific in nature.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Isn't quite as common?" I challenge you to come up with one reliable source that even so much as mentions the theory you are expressing--that the U.S. Gov. facilitated the attacks, not merely allowed them to happen, and not a controlled demolition theory. Mystylplx (talk) 04:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact is, foreign involvement is mentioned quite a bit and when it comes to the Saudis or Pakistanis is treated as a conspiracy theory, especially since there are allegations about the U.S. government covering up their involvement. So we should not be categorizing the theories as they are categorized.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 05:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact is foreign involvement is barely ever mentioned at all in comparison to the overwhelmingly more common controlled demolition theories. I wouldn't call foreign involvement theories denialism as they are merely speculation without evidence rather than speculation that contradicts evidence... but those theories are the fringe of the fringe of 911 conspiracy theories. Mystylplx (talk) 15:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It is barely mentioned in articles about the conspiracy theories for the simple reason that those articles tend to be about downplaying the theories. However, it is actually mentioned more in reliable sources than controlled demolition and generally regarded as more legitimate by them. I can direct you to a Vanity Fair article that had in-depth seven-page coverage on the subject of Saudi support.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 17:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You seem to be contradicting yourself--first you say it is barely mentioned then you say it is mentioned more? One Vanity Fair article vs 100's of articles? Mystylplx (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Another straw man. Bin Laden was not the mastermind of 911 (that was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed) and Bush was not completely taken by surprise. But it's irrelevant. It's not necessary that every single 911 conspiracy theory be an example of denialism to include that category. The bulk of them are examples of denialism. That's good enough for the category to apply. Mystylplx (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Precisely. And, if you don't like the vaccine comparison, there are plenty others to chose from. Did the Secret Service know in advance that JFK was going to be assassinated? Did the U.S. lay down its arms to allow the Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor? These all fall under the category of pseudohistory and involve denialism. Again, you're free to believe whatever you like. Wikipedia relies on "mainstream" media sources.JoelWhy (talk) 22:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theorists deny that the the official report is true. That's denialism. HiLo48 (talk) 21:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It requires you to establish that the official report is true and is not just a widely-accepted theory.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a "mainstream" encyclopedia but an encyclopedia based on a consensus of reliable sources which by Wikipedia guidelines are "mainstream". Most of the time they will be the same but if Wikipedia were a "mainstream" encyclopedia this article would not have existed pre 2006 nor would thousands of articles on obscure topics exist.


 * Denialism is in its literal form not an insult but by far most people saying others are are mean it in an insulting manner and those who are said to be denialist take it as an insult.


 * "Six years ago, when the 9/11 truth movement was much stronger". Very questionable While some reliable sources have noted a decline since the election of Obama and the economic downturn you did not have "Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth" and similar organizations back then nor Alex Jones being interviewed by the likes of Salon and Rolling Stone. "editors here would not have insulted people who dare to question the 9/11 OS" well insulted people personally has and always been rare due to Assume good faith there much more insulting and condensation towered the of the theories and even editor or two saying it was their job to promote Popular Machnics debunking of the theories something I believe would run into run into criticism today.


 * What is the proper forum to debate/petition Wikipedia's Reliable Source policies?. Edkollin (talk) 22:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure if this is what you are looking for, but the reliable sources noticeboard is here. Mystylplx (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Know about that but your suggestion made me think that is probably a better place to ask my question. Edkollin (talk) 22:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone dispute that the most prevalent 9/11 CT involves the U.S. planting explosives to bring down the WTC buildings? I'm not asking whether you personally believe this, or whehter this is what your friends believe. But, if you search the internet for stories on 9/11 CTs, this is the most prominent story told. Well, this theory falls squarely under the Denialism category.

Moreover, the generally accepted theory explained in the official report is supported by a plethora of articles and studies which are independent of the official report. Therefore, the other theories involving a cover up, foreknowledge, etc, also are fairly categorized under the denialism banner. It's not an insult; it just indicates that it involves a theory not supported by the evidence.JoelWhy (talk) 14:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I dispute a great deal of what you are saying. Going against the mainstream does not inherently mean we should treat that view as "denial" and imply the mainstream view is the indisputable truth. A few lines from WP:FRINGE that are of interest here:
 * Given the prejudicial nature of terms like pseudohistory, pseudoscience, and denialism there should be reliable sources clearly establishing this as a "defining characteristic" of the theories per WP:CAT. Only denialism has any notable mentions that I can find, though mostly in "skeptic" literature so that does not take away from the way the category skews the article. Like I said, the regular CT categories (not the ones about Jews) and fringe category are acceptable.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not a matter of the view being "mainstream" or "not mainstream". Creationism isn't pseudoscience because it's not "mainstream". It's pseudoscience because the science contradicts the claims being made. Similarly, the main CTs claimed related to 9/11 fall into the category of pseudohistory because the historical evidence clearly contradicts it.
 * As for the Jews issue, just Google "Jews" and "9/11", and you'll find a host of claims being made about how they were notified ahead of time, responsible for the attacks, etc. It's a prominent claim made, especially in the Middle East, but in the U.S. as well. There are many, many, many references acknowledging this.JoelWhy (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Editors can not the categorize something in an article because the editor concludes it meets the definition as described by Wikipedia. They can only do so if it is widely categorized that way by reliable sources. The old verifiable but truth thing. Right now it is most widely categorized as conspiracism. Edkollin (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's behind a paywall but here's a high-quality source which according to Google specifically mentions 9/11 CTs: How the growth of denialism undermines public health. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In Salon there's The 9/11 deniers by Farhad Manjoo, which we already cite. Certainly this article should be included in cat:denialism. Tom Harrison Talk 13:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Way to misrepresent and cherry-pick you two! I searched for that paper on AIDS denialism and the mention of 9/11 given in the search results says what I imagined it would. The paper refers to 9/11 conspiracy theories and appears to be making a connection between the people who espouse them and AIDS denialists. As to Salon, the headline says 9/11 deniers, but at no point in the actual article is the word "deny" or any variant even used and "denialism" certainly doesn't pop up. Maybe you don't understand. This is not a game of "find the source" where just one or two sources that sort of imply what you want to say is enough, though really any source that does not say what you want the article to say is rarely enough.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 17:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There are indeed sources that say the conspiracy theories in certain circles focus on Jews, but this article is mostly about the ones not involving Jews. WP:CAT requires that it be a "defining characteristic" and that does not apply here. If "Jews are responsible in some versions" is enough then pretty much every conspiracy theory would have to be categorized that way.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 17:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There are indeed sources that say the conspiracy theories in certain circles focus on Jews, but this article is mostly about the ones not involving Jews. WP:CAT requires that it be a "defining characteristic" and that does not apply here. If "Jews are responsible in some versions" is enough then pretty much every conspiracy theory would have to be categorized that way.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 17:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Should I understand that the dispute is now about the "denialism" category and that most editors would agree the "pseudoscience" and "pseudohistory" categories can be removed?--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If anything there's a stronger argument for removing denialism than pseudoscience or pseudohistory. Mystylplx (talk) 19:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wha!? Where did you get that idea? I am finding even fewer sources that refer to the 9/11 conspiracy theories with those terms.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 21:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This is from your article, The 9/11 deniers. The article seems to actually give SOME credence to the more softcore truth theories, like the government permitted 9/11 to occur.

''Kerrey was dismissive of the conspiracy theories as well. Asked about the possibility of a controlled demolition at the World Trade Center, he scoffed, “There’s no evidence for that.” But he also noted that, quite apart from what Avery and others in the “truth movement” have proposed, many legitimate mysteries still surround the events of that day. “There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version,” Kerrey said. The commission had limited time and limited resources to pursue its investigation, and its access to key documents and witnesses was fettered by the administration. “I didn’t read a single PDB,” Kerrey said, referring to the president’s daily intelligence briefing reports. “We didn’t have access to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed,” the mastermind of the plot. “We accepted a compromise, submitting our questions to him through the CIA. Now, that’s not the best way to go about getting your questions answered. So I’m 100 percent certain that [bin Laden] directed that attack, but am I completely comfortable saying there was no direct Saudi involvement, or that Saddam Hussein wasn’t involved in some fashion, or that the Iranians weren’t involved? I’m pretty close to 100 percent certain, but I’d be more comfortable if we’d interviewed Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.”''

Am I the only person who thinks it's incredibly weird they were only able to talk to Khalid via the CIA? Or are you guys just too blindly patriotic to see anything strange and worthy of skepticism about 9/11?

Abootmoose (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * There's far too much use of this page as a forum. Those denying the truth of the official explanation are deniers, so it's denialism. Simple as that. Even if, one day, any of their theories turn out to have some truth in them, today they are denying. Let's stop using Wikipedia as a forum and playing silly word games. HiLo48 (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Just because you think it is denialism, does not mean it should be categorized as such. "Conspiracy theory" is itself often seen as a pejorative term so it is not like there isn't enough sourced demeaning of the subject to satisfy you. No need to double-down with your unsourced opinions.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, so the real problem is that YOU understand Denialism as a pejorative term. Is it? HiLo48 (talk) 22:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I imagine that anyone accused of denial would consider it pejorative, just like so many are cool with calling the controlled demolition crowd conspiracy theorists, but get their panties in a bunch over someone using the same term to describe those who adhere to the mainstream point of view. My "real problem" is that the term is not used sufficiently to be used as a category. That it also fosters a biased view of the subject just reinforces the need to remove it.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And the problem there is that you used the word "accused". Putting someone in a category isn't an accusation. It's a description. And an accurate one. Why do you see it as pejorative? Where is the "accusation"? HiLo48 (talk) 03:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If you wanted to add the antisemitism category to the Rick Sanchez article would you defend that by saying "I am only describing him as an antisemite, I am not accusing him of hating Jews"?--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 17:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Who? Anyway, my post contained two questions and you only answered one. They were closely related, and you've avoided the other twice now. Why do you see it as pejorative? HiLo48 (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, actually I addressed all your questions.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I didn't notice. What makes denialism pejorative? Do you have a source for that? I ask because that categorisation has to be literally true. HiLo48 (talk) 22:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please understand that WP:NPOV does doesn't say that articles should be neutral. It says that editors should be neutral.  If reliable sources call this a conspiracy theory, we so should we.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, and I believe we should apply the same thinking to the denialism, pseudoscience, and pseudohistory categories.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 17:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a point here, did you intend to say NPOV doesn't say that articles should be neutral?--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 17:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Here are three two more useful sources:
 * Tom Harrison Talk 19:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Tom Harrison Talk 19:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

"There's far too much use of this page as a forum" - Yup. We should just shut up and be good Americans, right!? LOL Abootmoose (talk) 21:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)