Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9/11 Bin Laden conspiracy theory


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was Deleted per author request. — Phil Welch 23:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

9/11 Bin Laden conspiracy theory
pov fork of September 11, 2001 attacks Tom Harrison Talk 14:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete The theory is in general accepted as fact. No need to make a page about what is stated as fact in the September 11, 2001 attacks article. Bobby1011 14:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment as you said: GENERALY accepted as fact. BUT contested by a notable amount of higly eduacted people. Wikipedia presenting it as a fact is POV. --Striver 14:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * keep No theory is supposed to be presented as factual in wikipedia, as long as a notable amount of people, both i grass root level, and also in USA congress and former Bush secretaries dispute. The September 11, 2001 attacks is only to present the uncontested material as factual, everything else is pov to present as fact. All other theories being jamed in a single article outside the main is POV. --Striver 14:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment So argue your point at the September 11, 2001 attacks article. Why POV fork the article if policy is behind you? You should review Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Bobby1011 14:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I have. And i will continue to do so.--Striver 14:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete the article is already covered in September 11, 2001 attacks article and smells of POV fork anyway.--MONGO 14:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This is NOT, i repeat  NOT a atempt of POINT or pov forking. All other theories have their own article, as so is this one going to get. Choosing one single article, and presenting it in its whole in the main page while pushing all others to a SINGLE page is pov.--Striver 14:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment Dont just blindly vote "delete". This is not a vote, this is a dialog to reach a conclusion. that is why it no longer is named "Vote For Deletion". My claim is undiputable:
 * This is A theory among theories.
 * This is contested by very notable people, in all spheres of society
 * This is the most accpeted theory
 * This is accpeted as factaul by a great many people
 * Wikipedia is not to present a theory this hotly disputed as factual, that is POV
 * Wikiepedia is to give more space to more accepted theories, but it is not to let it totaly dominate a article.

--Striver 14:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as POV. --Ter e nce Ong 14:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * How exactly is it pov to unpov a theory? Do explain that to me!--Striver 14:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment If this is to be merged into the main aritcle, so it every thingle other theory to be merged into the main article. Only letting ONE singel theory to be FULLY represented in the main article is POV. As long as the other theories get their own article, so must this one. --Striver 14:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete as per MONGO. Already tagged the article 2 times for speedy. Tag removed by Striver - Aksi great 14:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The only reason that this article is claimed to be a pov fork, while the other theory pages are NOT claimed to be POV forks is systematical bias.--Striver 14:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

This is article is NOT a pov fork, if the article of the other theories are not pov forks either. Remeber, the people that belive in this theory are in majority, and its easy to just muscle a delete throug. How about disproving what im saying? --Striver 14:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as POV. Weregerbil 14:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Yet again another one just sayin "POV". What POV? Whos POV? Just saying pov dosnt make it pov. Motivate, dont just muscle in since you have majority. Wikipedia is NOT a democracy. --Striver 14:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Saying it is POV does not make it POV. What makes it POV is that it is POV. Calling things "conspiracy theory" is POV. Weregerbil 14:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

If it is POV to call it a "conspiracy theory", then why are all other theories labeled "conspiracy theory"? those being labeled as "conspiracy theory" clearly proves that it is NPOV to call it a "conspiracy theory". It IS a theory of a Conspiracy.--Striver 14:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * At least to me, "conspiracy theory" and "theory about a conspiracy" have somewhat different meanings. Do you consider them exactly synonymous? Perhaps that could be the root of our disagreement. Weregerbil 15:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

All "delete" votes so far have NOT been based on any valid arguement. It is NOT pov, it is NOT pov to call it a "conspiracy theory", it is not a POV fork. Give a valid argument for any of the accusations. --Striver 15:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. The September 11, 2001 attacks article already notes alternative theories, which are elaborated in 9/11 conspiracy theories.  And it's fine to note that some people  in some places  do not agree with the "official" account that implicated Osama bin Laden.  But this "theory" doesn't need it's own article, any more than the other theories discussed in 9/11 conspiracy theories. --Aude ( talk | contribs ) 15:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

That is exactly what im talking about! Why is this theroy fully preseted in the main article, while all other theories are jamed in one single article? If this theory is not going to get its own article, then for NPOV's sake, it needs to also be jamed with the other. --Striver 15:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

My point is easy: It is POV to give this theory FULL coverage in the main aricle, while all others get a single article to inhabit. How is that NPOV?

This article IS the most widely accepted, but that does not give FULL access to the main article. That is pov. --Striver 15:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Because it is, by far, the most widely accepted and best proven account of the events of that shameful act of violence. Pretending otherwise and portraying it as just another conspiracy theory would be non-factual. Weregerbil 15:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

yes, i agree that it is "by far, the most widely accepted". And i also are convinded that you belive it is the "best proven account". But i dont not agree that it is the "best proven account". And wikipedia claiming it is, is simly pov. Wikipedia claiming it is Factual is POV, your POV, the majority POV. But POV non the less.

And it was truly a shameful act of violence.

And yes, it IS a theory of a conpiracy. Are you claiming it is pov to call it a conspiracy theory?

I do NOT say it should be treated as the others, it needs to get proportionaly more space, but it does not have 100% support, and giving it 100% coverage in the main article is pov, your pov, and not my pov. --Striver 15:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * There's more to conspiracy theory than any theory about a conspiracy. Tom Harrison Talk 15:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You ask if I think calling a theory about a conspiracy a conspiracy theory is POV. Yes, I think it is very much POV. In my non-native speaker understanding of the English language those things mean different things. Are they synonymous to you? Perhaps this is the root of our disagreement. Weregerbil 15:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete no sources, no evidence this is a widely held theory. Properly sourced (which actually shouldn't be that hard to do) something along these lines could be added to the 9/11 conspiracy theories article.  No reason for a separate article though.--Isotope23 15:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The page is, in fact, a violation of copyrights. The original can be found here. The version in the article has been shortened and the wording slightly altered as to give the impression that it is only a theory. Bobby1011 15:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * My mistake. The actual source is Wikipedia itself, as was pointed out to me by Tom and Kmf164.
 * Heh; That site's material is originally from our article, September 11, 2001 attacks. I'm sure Striver copied and pasted from there, to start things off. I think that's okay, unless you take the position that it's a copy-and-paste page move. Tom Harrison Talk 15:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Meh, it is, IMO, unethical to change only enough of the author's statment to alter the POV from which it is written. The original author obviously had no intention of having their words skewed to imply something so different. Doesn't bother me that much though. Bobby1011 15:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by copyright violation? The link cited in fact is a copy of the Wikipedia September 11, 2001 attacks article (which it cites), not the other way around. --Aude ( talk | contribs ) 15:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not a copyvio, unless because of a cut-and-paste page move, and probably not then. Tom Harrison Talk 15:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as agenda-pushing useless fork. Sandstein 16:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:POINT violating fork. --Aaron 16:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:POINT says it eloquently. &mdash; ciphergoth 16:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:POVFORK is the guideline for which this article is a textbook case. &mdash; patsw 17:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:RS -- no support for this outlandish claim, but ya gotta love these tin-foil hat guys. True Believers!  Morton devonshire 18:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:POINT & POV --Hetar 18:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. This so-called conspiracy theory is the fact of the matter. It is simply pushing a POV to claim otherwise. Capitalistroadster 18:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Not deleted yet? J.J.Sagnella 18:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, POV fork, see the undue weight clause of WP:NPOV. Rhobite 19:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a soapbox.--Jersey Devil 00:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Another random delete... waht soap box? I just want a theory to NOT be presented as a fact. How is that a soapbox? Or did you just see lots of text, didnt like the title and figured a convinient way to say "delete" and still having something to say?

Section break
Man, you are just incredible... Let me quote this:


 * Delete no sources, no evidence this is a widely held theory. Properly sourced (which actually shouldn't be that hard to do) something along these lines could be added to the 9/11 conspiracy theories article.  No reason for a separate article though.--Isotope23 15:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

This gentleman didnt even bother to read the article! I mean, is the closing adming going to take this kind of voting into acount?

Anyone that actualy READs the article will see that it THE official theory, presented in a NPOV wording. And guees what? Just becaus it contained the word "conspiracy theory" in the heading, he belived it was some othere theory.

And what about this?


 * ''unethical to change only enough of the author's statment to alter the POV from which it is written

Isnt that what wikipedia does every single time somebody puts up a POV sign? Somebody takes and re-writes the article in a NPOV way, and that is supposed to be unethical?

Guys, look at yourself, just because i took the official theory and made it NPOV, that is, not claiming it to be factual, you became so uppset that without even bothering to read the article, you started lanbeling it as a "outlandish claim"!

As for POV fork allegations, why is this a pov fork, but 9/11 conspiracy theories not a pov fork? Could i get a straight and logical answer to that? A answer that does not go like "Well, its a pov fork since this is TRUE, and the other theories are FALSE, hence, its a pov fork"?

And dont you dare to claim my good faith edits are POINT!

As for the difference between a "conspiracy theory" and "theory about a conspiracy", could somebody be kind enogh to explain to me the difference? Thanks--Striver 19:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * See Conspiracy theory. Tom Harrison Talk 19:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Please, dont give me that. If you ask me, there is no difference between a "conspiracy theory" and "theory about a conspiracy". Some people tried to claim that conspiracy theory" had a negative conotation, and thus should not be used in titles since it was pov, but the majority of wikipedians did not agree with him. If you in fact claim there is a difference, then you are at the same time claiming there is a pov issue in using it in ANY tittle. --Striver 21:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Not at all. A conspiracy theory is an objectively identifiable thing. A theory involving a conspiracy is different objectively identifiable thing. There is no issue with using 'conspiracy theory' in article titles, as long as it's used correctly. Tom Harrison Talk 21:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Striver, I read the article before I rendered my opinion and my reasoning stands as stated: You did not source your claims nor provide any evidence that this is a widely held theory, or in your words "accepted as factual by many people in many parts of the world".  I know this is the official account and like I said, it should be ridiculously easy to source your claims... but you have to source it.  You can't just assume that everybody knows this is the mostly widely held belief of who was behind September 11th.  Furthermore, I don't see any reason for this article to exist as a standalone.  It is mentioned in the main September 11 article and if you have a concern that the concept that some people see this explanation as a "conspiracy theory" is not accurately portrayed there, then mention (along with sourcing that some people consider the Bin Laden connection a conspiracy theory) at 9/11 conspiracy theories... and don't automatically assume bad faith just because I disagree with you.... and it's not a "vote" as you stated, this is a gathering of opinions.--Isotope23 20:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, sorry if i gave the impression of assuming bad faith. I apologise.

About sourcing, what do you expect me to source? That all western governments officialy belive in the Bin Ladin conspicacy theory? That the 9/11 commision belives in it? That every single major newspaper in the USA and Europ belive its factual? That anyone not beliving in the Bin Ladin conspicacy theory is considered a idiot? That i have on several occasions claimed to be a nut case for not beliving in the Bin Ladin conspicacy theory?

I dont get it. The September 11, 2001 attacks claims the Bin Ladin conspicacy theory to be factual, and therefore i have put a pov sign on it. I suspect we are not conecting....

Im sure you dont mean that the article should be deleted for not sourcing such an obvious statment?

My reason of it being a standalone is simply that it is POV to give a full account of it in the main article, while all other conspicacy theory COMBINED get this:
 * ''Almost immediately after the attacks, conspiracy theories about possible U.S. Government involvement and other speculations were fostered by political opponents to the Bush administration, anti-American groups, those looking to make a quick profit, and some who had doubts about the mainstream media account.

That is POV. I didnt try to put it in 9/11 conspiracy theories, since i would probly get baned for it :P

Further, it is the most reqognized conspiracy theories, so if any, this one should get its own article. Optimaly, the main article should only state the non-contested facts, then have a section where it summs all conspiracy theories, including the bin laden one, giving the bin laden one most space, then linking to 9/11 conspiracy theories. The 9/11 conspiracy theories should the START by summing the bin laden one, and linking to it, then going though all others on it self. OR just have all conspiracy theories on the same article.

It is simply POV to present the Bin Ladin conspicacy theory as the factual in the main article, and everyone else being sumed in two lines as shuved into a single article.

It is even pov to present Bin Ladin conspicacy theory as a theory, and only giving all others only two lines, and shuving them to a single article.

Just on a hunch, i belive this could be NPOV: Presesnting non-contested facts, then giving the Bin Ladin conspicacy theory some space, then giving all others theories COMBINED 30% of that space. If ONE or several theory is called a conspicacy theory, the ALL should. either all are called conspicacy theory, or none.

I repeat: It is simply POV to give ONE conspiracy theory FULL coverage in the main article, to the point of it not even needing any article, while shuving everything else into one single article.

It is also pov to label some, but not all, as a conspicacy theory.

It is also pov to present one conspicacy theory as factual.

One more thing: You seem to assume that i belive "conspicacy theory" is a pejorative label. Some people do. I dont. I regard all theories about who and why the attacks where done as a conspicacy theories: a theory about a conspiracy.

In that view, i dont even see what this means: "along with sourcing that some people consider the Bin Laden connection a conspiracy theory"

That sentance seems to to say that you belive the "conspicacy theory" to be pejorative. During my whole argumentation, i have assumed it is not pejorative. The reason is that people tried to remove the "conspicacy theory" from titles, saying it was pejorative, but the majority did not agree with them.

Anyone beliving "conspicacy theory" is a pejorative term needs to support the removal of it from ALL article, since it is POV to have pejorative terms in titles.--Striver 21:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Some people seem to belive that a "conspicacy theory" is not the same thing as a "theory about a conspiracy". How do you objectivly decide if one theory is a "conspicacy theory" or a "theory about a conspiracy"? I claim it is not possible to do it obectivly. If im wrong, please correct me.


 * I included the link to conspiracy theory because you asked for an explanation of the differences between that and any theory involving a conspiracy. I assumed you asked because you wanted to know, and not as a rhetorical device. Was I mistaken? Tom Harrison Talk 21:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Striver, no problem... no offense taken. I may be riding my sourcing stick a little hard today.  I'll see if I can find something that would satisfy me.
 * I don't think you would necessarily take alot of heat for adding this to the 9/11 conspiracy theories article if it was written correctly. "Conspiracy Theory" is sort of a loaded term because it suggests to some people that there is some doubt as to the validity of whatever is being claimed. Calling something a "Conspiracy Theory" is generally considered a pejoritive term (and indeed while it appears you did not intend it that way, I read it that way); at least in American English. It evokes UFOs, Alien Abductions, and a vast network of people who were dedicated to killing John. F. Kennedy.  What I meant by "along with sourcing that some people consider the Bin Laden connection a conspiracy theory" was in the light of "Conspiracy Theory" as the possible pejorative: simply that while a majority of people believe Bin Ladin and Al'Qaeda were materially responsible for the September 11th attacks, ther are people out there that do not believe this to be the case and that his connection to 9/11 was manufactured.  Perhaps I misinterpreted your intent with this article, but that also illustrates the connotation that is inherent in the term "Conspiracy Theory". I can see you disagree, but I imagine if you took a poll here, the majority would consider "Conspiracy Theory" to be a negative connotation term.--Isotope23 21:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Bro, if that is the case, and we are supposed to agree on that definition, then why is wikipedia claiming my view to be "doubt as to the validity" of its claim?

Isnt it POV to label my view with a pejorativ term in the heading?

How is it not like renaming Christianity to Jesus worshiping?

I was assuming there was no differnce, so i named it "9/11 Bin Laden conspiracy theory". In view of what you are saying, it, all other theories should be named "Theory of 9/11 Bin Laden conspiracy". Surely its not the intent of Wikipedia to judge the validity of a theory? --Striver 22:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Super Strong Delete POV, OR, pro- bin Laden soapboxing.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Section break
I apologize if it is perceived as bad faith. Yes, it was in some way a rhetorical question. But i stil stand by the question: What is the difference, and how do we OBJECTIVLY claim one is "conspicacy theory" or a "theory about a conspiracy". I know that some people perceive "conspicacy theory" to be objective, while a "theory about a conspiracy" to be pejorative.

Tom harrison, Are you among them? Do you belive there is a difference between them, and that "conspicacy theory" is pejorative? --Striver 21:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I personaly do not belive there is a difference, not more that SOME people belive "conspicacy theory" to be pejorative. The discution of wheter "conspicacy theory" should or should not be used in Wikipedia articles concluded that the word was NPOV, so im going with that standard. Both being NPOV means that none is pejorative, meaning that both "conspicacy theory" and "theory about a conspiracy" are synonymos. If not one of them being pejorative, what other difference are there? I can not see any other difference. --Striver 21:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Tom, you wrote:


 * ''Not at all. A conspiracy theory is an objectively identifiable thing. A theory involving a conspiracy is different objectively identifiable thing. There is no issue with using 'conspiracy theory' in article titles, as long as it's used correctly.

Please Tom, i urge you, spell out the difference, dont dance around it. Say:


 * '' "A "conspiracy theory" is X, while a "theory involving a conspiracy" Z, and Z and X are not equals since Q"

If you do that, you will inevitibly come to one of the following conclusions:

A: There is no diffence between Z and X

or

B: There is a difference, being that one is less credible.

If the answer is B, then it is pov to use it in Wikipedia titles. But earlier discution have concluded that it is NOT pov to use it in titles. Thus, the answer must be "There is no diffence between Z and X".

And it is with that reasoning i say its NPOV to say "9/11 Bin Laden conspiracy theory" --Striver 21:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Please dont take this as POINT, i am sincerly trying to abide by previous desicions. --Striver 21:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The two phrases refer to different things; They are not just different ways of saying the same thing. There is a difference, and it's spelled out in detail in conspiracy theory, which you might find interesting reading. Have a look at the references while you are there reading it. There's an extensive body of academic literature about conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theory can be used as a pejorative, but it need not be. You can recognize a conspiracy theory by its structural features. Conspiracy as a legal term is a different thing. Tom Harrison Talk 22:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I was assuming there was no differnce, so i named it "9/11 Bin Laden conspiracy theory". In view of what you are saying, it, and all other theories should be named to "Theory of 9/11 Bin Laden conspiracy". Surely its not the intent of Wikipedia to judge the validity of a theory? --Striver 22:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think I prefer September 11, 2001 attacks. Since this is actually about whether to delete 9/11 Bin Laden conspiracy theory, I'll follow the discussion here, but probably won't reply further. Leave a message on my talk page, or continue at Talk:Conspiracy theory or elsewhere. Best regards, Tom Harrison Talk 22:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Acctualy, you are missing my point. It is undisputed that there was a September 11, 2001 attacks. That is NPOV to say as a fact. But it is POV to say that Bin laden did it. The event is one issue, who and why is a totaly other. And there are many theories of who and why it was made. My problem is that ONE of this theories is singled out as factual, and thus merged with the factual parts of the event. The facts and the theories need to be separated, no matter the popularity of a theory--Striver 22:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Rename. Based on disscusions so far, i support renaming this article to Theory of 9/11 Bin Laden conspiracy --Striver 22:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as pov fork as per above discussion. MCB 05:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete There is no need for this article. The entire basis for its existence is fully covered in the 9/11 conspiracy article. Whether Striver likes it or not, the 9/11 commission account is the verified factual account until or unless proven otherwise. It does not have the status of theory, it has the status of historical fact so does not need to be presented as a theory. Other historical facts that are disputed do not lose their status as fact simply because there are conspiracy theories about them. The format that existed with the main article covering what is the established historical record and a separate section regarding conspiracy theories that dispute the historical record seems perfectly reasonable. MLA 09:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

It not being a theory is not true. The Bin Laden theory can not account for many things, for example why building seven was demolished. It is heavly contested by mutliple scholars in multiple fields. It is not factual, even though many people belive it is. It is pov to have such a disputed theory stated as a fact. --Striver 13:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete &mdash; per WP:NOT, WP:NOT. Lacks valid references to provide credibility to an otherwise purely speculative, PoV assertion. &mdash; RJH 21:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Statement
I do not see any point in continuing this. I am convinced my arguement is valid, but i get discouraged when people keep reiterating things i have disproven. Ill return to this later, you can delete it now. --Striver 13:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I just put a db tag on the page as a G7 (author requests deletion). If you change your mind before an admin sees it, Striver, just remove the tag from the page and I won't attempt to add the tag back. --Aaron 23:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.