Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-02-12-9/11 conspiracy theories/archive3

Acceptance by parties
If you have other issues you think need to be addressed for the article, or contingencies for your involvement, please leave a short note saying so.

Accept

 * Accept, though I'm not entirely thrilled by the odds of resolving this. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 11:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Accept --Pokipsy76 (talk) 19:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Accept: Wayne (talk) 06:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Accept, because I think that accepting mediation will make it more likely that ArbCom would accept the inevitable request for arbitration. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Accept //   Chris  (complaints) • (contribs) 01:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Accept. Since the mediation is informal and non-binding (?) I do not see why one would reject mediation. I will not accept the outcome though, when I feel it is in violation of POLICY. Hope that does not offend anyone! &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 11:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * comment: also I do not support a particular move, I'm not sure we've found the best title yet. The only thing I am certain of is that the current one is pejorative, and a move is needed for me. --Xiutwel 11:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Accept ireneshusband (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Accept Gindo 01:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Accept Xiutwel is representing me and my viewpoints. Anything he says, i agree or go along with. --Striver - talk 14:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I thank you for your confidence in me, Striver! &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 13:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Accept In being labelling, the current title is also ahistorical in that many "conspiracy theories" have turned out to be conspiracy facts. Perscurator (talk) 16:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Accept Oneismany (talk) 03:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Decline

 * The unrelenting hostility and almost cartoon-like exaggeration and misrepresentation of the discussion both in the statement here and on the talk page means that this will only be a waste of time. This is little more than forum shopping, this has been settled again and again. Ireneshusband's comments regarding this issue and those that disagree with him make me quite unwilling to engage on this. RxS (talk) 05:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you think mediation would help if the request details were made more neutral, or to fuller reflect the disputes in the article as a whole? Xavexgoem (talk) 05:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been thinking about this until I saw the third acceptance. "the same conservative group of editors who now quote it ad nausiam"....indeed, need I say more? Rather than throw out a bunch of behavioral acronyms I'll just say how contemptible that is and move on. RxS (talk) 15:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Per RxS...wikipedia doesn't exist to promote excessive violations WP:FRINGE. The conspiracy theories revolving around the events of 9/11/2001 are more than noted in overly exhaustive details already on their respective pages. Changing the titles of these fringe beliefs won't make them any less fringe, and will only make wikipedia look less factually reliable.--MONGO 19:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * To me that doesnt seem like a reason for mediation not to occur but more like why you feel a change shouldnt occur. What reason do you have for mediation itself not to take place? Would you feel any different if this case was referred to the mediation committee? Seddon69 (talk) 20:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As a long-term bystander in the 9/11 conspiracy theory wars, I would say this proposed move has no merit and unless the purpose of mediation is to patiently explain to people why it's not going to change, per multiple previous debates showing solid consensus, then it's a waste of time. Guy (Help!) 14:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

 * I'm not willing to decline outright, since I believe that talking is can be productive (but like Eleland says, not optimistic). However, RxS makes a good point, and one which I have previously echoed &mdash; indeed, it was my first comment on the discussion.  I'm not going to put time and effort into a mediation where other parties to the dispute continue to abuse the other side &mdash; even as late into the process as today.  This hasn't changed since this (to steal a phrase) "abusive screed" of a mediation request was first published, and the only people who I have seen make a good faith effort to change the tone of this discussion are the mediators.  --Haemo (talk) 19:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Eleland came up with the current request :)
 * Accepting parties are making a vow of good faith by participating in this discussion here. Us mediators will be making sure the discussion here stays civil and as warm as possible. We will restructure the page to avoid unnecessary cross-talk, and ask questions regarding the issues. Again, I want to create a clean slate here for you folks. No optimism required, but I do encourage a little less cynicism ;) (btw, thanks for the neutral category :) Xavexgoem (talk) 20:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * We realise that there were faults with previous case request and we really want to make sure that this forum is productive and that all users are treated as equals with the upmost respect, good faith and remaining civil. We need this to happen from both sides. Seddon69 (talk) 23:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Look at the third accept statement here. I think that says it all on this issue; I'm not going to be part of a mediation request where people are repeatedly abused and attacked for disagreeing. --Haemo (talk) 04:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fine, but I point out that there wouldn't be a case if disagreeing editors weren't attacking each other ;) Xavexgoem (talk) 04:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've mediated disputes where there was no behavioral issue, only a content dispute, before. Mediation generally only works if people stop attacking others during the mediation; even if they were before.  As I said, I'm not convinced this is going to happen here.  --Haemo (talk)
 * It's the mediators job to keep attacks from happening, by warning people and removing such attacks. Participating is a sign of good faith, and we will hold people to that. Xavexgoem (talk) 05:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to discuss this much. However, I will chime in just to confirm that my name is correctly listed with those who oppose a move, since I discussed it on the article's talk page quite a bit. Still, there wouldn't be a point for me to add an argument: Haemo has voiced fairly well the reasons to keep this article as it is, and I'll just add my support there. It's pretty much what I have argued on the article's talk page. WP:COMMONNAME applies here without question. Okiefromokla questions? 04:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not interested in participating, with similar reasons as those provided by RxS above. Ireneshusband has brought up this "renaming" proposal before and it has been rejected. It is tiresome to be re-explaining things again and again as to why "9/11 alternative theories" is not acceptable as the page title. There are other things to work on here on Wikipedia, besides wasting more time with this. "9/11 conspiracy theories" is by far the most common name that people know and will look for on Wikipedia. Absolutely no need to change the name of the page. --Aude (talk) 01:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

What is your general position, and why?
(Please avoid judgmental language, and cross talk (for the time being))

1. What is your position on the matter, and what is your reasoning behind it? your general statement, really; also checking if the parties are balanced

(1) Reply by eleland

 * The term "conspiracy theory" is not neutral in the sense that distilled water has a neutral pH. However, we're talking about "neutrality" in terms of WP:NPOV policy here. On Wikipedia, "neutrality" means accommodating the views of all reliable sources in proportion to their significance. Part of NPOV means not deferring to fringe theories.
 * It is in this sense, the technical Wikipedia sense, that the term "neutrality" must be interpreted. Thus, if the overwhelming majority of reliable sources use the term "conspiracy theory" to describe the claims promulgated by the 9/11 truth movement, "9/11 conspiracy theories" is, in fact, a neutral title — even though it seems to cast aspersions on the validity of those claims. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 03:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Question: Do you think a title like "cover up allegations" would be less neutral than "conspiracy theories" (and why)?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 17:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

(1) Reply by Pokipsy76

 * The term conspiracy theories can be interpreted in two ways:
 * folkloristic theories belonging to conspiracism
 * just theories involving a comnspiracy
 * The 1st meaning is "stronger" than the 2nd havimg more implications, so it is the 1st menaing that must be addressed(*).
 * If the implications of the 1st interpretation were unobjectionably true for the material in the article than I would consider the title to be correct. If instead these implications are controversial or disputed then the title should change because it would imply as a fact a controversial opinion and it is forbidden by WP:NPOV.
 * I personally believe that it is a metter of opinion to think that those are "conspiracy theory" (in the 1st sense). I don't think that anybody could in any way check unobjectionably if those theory are actually conspiracism or not, reasonable or folkloristic: there is room to assume both POV and to be neutral without being unreasonable.
 * I must obviously consider the possibility that I could be wrong and in fact it could be not a matter of opinion but it a verifiable fact that all the allegations in the article are nothing more than folkroristic conspiracism. But if this is the case then according to wikipedia policies we need a reliable source to write it as a fact. Obviously a journalist using the word "conspiracy theory" wouldn't suffice (how would we know for example if he using the word with the 1st or the 2nd meaning? How would we know if it is not just an editorial POV?). Unless someone prove that It is not a disputed opinin but a fact we should act as it was an opinion, avoiding to endorse possibly cntroversial POV (per WP:NPOV).
 * Somebody cites the giudeline Naming conventions (common names) to argue that we must choose the most common name for the title. This guideline would be relevant just in case we would be able to prove that the term "conspiracy theory" is neutral i.e. express a unobjectionable fact and not a controversial opinion. Otherwise since wikipedia policies are more important than guidelines we would have to consider WP:NPOV first. As said above it has not yet been proven that the term express a fact rather than an opinion.
 * Somebody try to make comparison with terms like pedophilia, terrorism or fascism. This is inappropriate: you could certainly be legitimate to call "conspiracy theory" (in the "academic" sense) an article that unobjectionably speaks about an urban folkloristic (->unreasonable) theory and you are legitimate to use the word "terrorism" when there is unobjectionably a case of "terrorism" and the word "fascist" for Mussolini. This is legitimate even if the term is percieived as negative. However if it is disputed whether the claims are urban folkloristic unreasonable ones or whether an act is terroristic or not or whether a person can be considered fascist we are not legitimate to use such words because it would mean to express personal opinions as facts (clearly against WP:NPOV).
 * Comparison with flat earth theory is also inappropriate: the status of flat earth theory is settled by the authority of science. There is no such an authority that we can cite to settle the status of the nonmainstream claims on 9/11.
 * --Pokipsy76 (talk) 14:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * (*) In fact we can't just say that we are using the term with the 2nd meaning and ignore the 1st one. We can't because the existence of the 1st meaning makes the term ambiguous and this ambiguity can possibly be misleading and derogative (this would be supported by the fact that many people here believe that the intended meaning is the 1st). So WP:NPOV would apply and force us to use other more neutral expressions.

(1) Reply by Wayne

 * "Conspiracy theories" is pejorative and thus not NPOV. This is supported by the comment several highly respected editors used to support their oppose vote for a name change in previous RFC's such as "the theories are absurd and they deserve the title of conspiracy theories", "Yes, it's pejorative, and well-deserved" and "Academic sources actually do make the point that "conspiracy theory" is used as a pejorative..so the name should stay". If it is clear to the editors supporting the current title that it is perjorative then it follows it should have the same meaning for the general public.
 * The title giving credence to theories is not a valid reason. Alternative theories Def:"is not necessarily based on facts… it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality". The term cannot be claimed to imply credibility.
 * "Conspiracy theory" is consistently used by the mainstream media in a derogatory sense.
 * Not all 911 "conspiracy theories" actually require a conspiracy and are rightly called an alternative theory.
 * A main reason to oppose a change is the "Google test". The popularity of a title does not mean it is the most appropriate. An example is where an article had a name change recently and now gets exactly 5 hits on google with one of those being the WP article itself, one a link to the WP article, one a blog, one being my own talk page and one being a critique of the WP article. Likewise, WP:Naming conventions should not be the main reason for not changing the name as it is a guideline not a law. Using the convention (or the Google test) should be in conjunction with a reason for opposing. Wayne (talk) 17:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Does the story fit the pattern of a conspiracy theory? Conspiracy theories are rarely true, even though they have great appeal and are often widely believed.'''"It then goes on to compare 911 Conspiracy Theories as similar to the claim the US government is deliberately spreading Aids. Apparently the government believes the term is pejorative or at least is attempting to make it so. Wayne (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Just read an article distributed by the US State Department."'''How can a journalist or a news consumer tell if a story is true or false? There are no exact rules, but the following clues can help indicate if a story or allegation is true.

(1) Reply by Ice Cold Beer

 * I believe that the current title should remain, for two reasons
 * The term conspiracy is not used pejoratively within the article (which I will discuss more thoroughly below).
 * The theories are most commonly described as conspiracy theories.
 * Therefore, per WP:NAME, 9/11 conspiracy theories is the best name for the article. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

(1) Reply by Chris

 * I believe "conspiracy theories" is the appropriate title for the article, and I have yet to see another suggestion that would comply with policies.
 * My argument is based on WP:NAME, specifically Naming conventions (events). This is not a perfect category, but I think it is most applicable to the topic at hand.  As I've mentioned on the talk page of another user in this debate, the relevant points are the following:


 * If there is a particular common name for the event, it should be used even if it implies a controversial point of view.
 * If there is no common name for the event, and there is a generally accepted word used when identifying the event, the title should include the word even if it is a strong one such as "massacre" or "genocide" or "war crime". However, to keep article names short, avoid including more words than are necessary to identify the event. For example, the adjective "terrorist" is usually not needed.
 * If there is no common name for the event and no generally accepted descriptive word, use a descriptive name that does not carry POV implications.
 * Points 1 & 2 seem to be the applicable standards to apply to this case. 3 Doesn't seem to apply, because there is a common name for the topic.
 * Using the term "alternative theories", when the term is not used by any of the reliable sources documenting the phenomenon, crosses over into WP:OR. The way I see it, this is an attempt by the 9/11 truth community to impart an aura of respectability to their theories that reliable sources appear to be unwilling to provide.  We don't have an article entitled Alternative Theories of Earth's Shape for this reason.
 * In addition to my reasoning, I concur with Haemo's position. //   Chris  (complaints) • (contribs) 16:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

(1) Reply by Ireneshusband

 * I do not accept that the term conspiracy theory has a neutral meaning any more. John Ayto, in Twentieth Century Words, says that the term was originally a neutral one, but that it has been increasingly used in a derogatory sense since the 1960s. To say that you can decide that your readers will understand only one sense and not the other is absurd. In practice, the term, along with the closely related conspiracy theorist, is overwhelmingly used in a derogatory sense. Therefore the term
 * prejudges the content of the article.
 * is offensive.
 * Nevertheless, insofar as the meaning of conspiracy theory is not clear – does it mean any belief in a conspiracy, or only certain kinds of beliefs about alleged conspiracies? – it is an ambiguous term. Alternative theory is not ambiguous.
 * Conspiracy theory would not cover certain kinds of hypothesis that would naturally belong in this article, such as one concerning gross criminal negligence. Alternative theories would. Alternative theories is a natural encyclopaedic category, at least given the decision to exclude alternative explanations of 9/11 from the main 9/11 article.
 * The rationale behind Naming conventions is that article titles should not pose unnecessary difficulties for a lay reader. There is nothing about the term alternative theory that could be considered unduly difficult to comprehend. ireneshusband (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

(1) Reply by Xiutwel

 * I used to think that in the absense of consensus, we should keep the status quo, even though it was sub-optimal. Since I discovered recently that the lack of consensus is due to a large part to editors intentionally choosing a pejorative title, in order to push for their POV that the official version would be true (which is &mdash;theoretically&mdash; possible), thus violating WP:NEUTRAL and WP:NAME, I feel the current title must go. A redirect can stay, since it is commonly used indeed. I have not yet made a choice which new title would be best. I concur with Pokipsy76, Wayne and Ireneshusband. &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 21:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

(1) Reply by Haemo

 * The term "conspiracy theory" has both a pejorative and a neutral sense; the sources cited by other parties, and our own article on the subject support as much. The neutral sense is often used by academic writers and journalists to describe this particular class of theories.
 * Furthermore, the term "conspiracy theory" has a very specific academic meaning, especially in the neutral sense, and is (far and away) the most commonly used term to describe the theories described in the article by reliable sources.
 * The term "alternative theories" is not used by reliable sources to talk about the theories described; indeed, I believe only two uses have ever been put forward which even mention the term in this context. Instead, the term "alternative theories" has been adopted by proponents of these theories, chiefly to distance themselves from the raft of criticism which their theories have attracted under the moniker of "conspiracy theories".
 * The changing of the name accomplishes the following:
 * It removes the most commonly used term, replacing it with an obscure term used mainly by proponents of the theories in question.
 * The proposed new term is specifically designed to distance the theories from criticism they have attracted. In this sense, there is a parallel between the arguments over changing the name of the "pedophilia" articles to "boy/girl love" &mdash; arguments which are based on the same "neutrality" argument about the term "pedophile", and which seek its replacement with a euphemism that is not well-known, and thus avoids criticism.
 * In other words, we replace a neutral term (which can be used pejoratively) with an obscure terms designed to deflect criticism from the theories in question. This should ring some neutrality bells.
 * There is no indication in the title of the article that the term is being used in a pejorative sense. Indeed, most of the major journalistic, or academic, works about the theories described use it in the same neutral way.  The argument has been made repeatedly that it is "inherently pejorative" &mdash; this is simply not true.  A very wide class of terms "terrorism", "pedophile", "traitor", "fraud", have both pejorative and neutral uses.  Indeed, the list is basically endless, and depends on what individuals think is "pejorative" &mdash; for instance, some people might be very offended to find a figure they respect described as "liberal" or "Catholic".  We cannot control what people think, or what they are going to think is pejorative. We can instead adopt terminology which is specific to the topic and is widely used in a neutral sense by reliable sources &mdash; and avoid choosing politically motivated terms which serve to distance the subject from criticism.  --Haemo (talk) 03:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Impressive argument. I couldn't have said it better myself, so I wont :) Okiefromokla questions? 04:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

(1) Reply by Gindo

 * The term is pejorative and not NPOV. Seperate from how the term is used in the article  (one can argue that it is used in a neutral fashion), society at large largely has a consistent perception of the term "conspiracy theorist" and "conspiracy theory" which is not favourable.  This interpritation of the term causes prejudgement of the article content for a large portion of readers, therefore is contrary to our umbrella objective of NPOV.


 * "Conspiracy Theory" is not an accurate description of the content.  The title doesn't differentiate it from the "attacks" article, as that is also a conspiracy.  The official version has it that 19 men armed with box cutters "conspired" to make the events happen.  Other interpritations have it that people outside of the 19 men with box cutters "conspired" to make the events happen.


 * Lets make some comparisons:
 * "Apollo Moon Landing hoax theories" is also a controversial and contested topic. (nb: Formerly listed on WP as "Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations").    Here we see an appropriate article title here, and not "Apollo Moon Landing Conspiracy Theories".
 * "Kennedy assassination theories" is not called "Kennedy assassination Conspiracy Theories"
 * Both the "appollo hoax" and "JFK theories" articles and the "9/11 cospiracy theory" article have many parallels in how they relate to an "official story". Yet we're struggling with giving the latter an appropriate title.


 * I'm amicable to a discussion about other alternate titles besides "9/11 alternative theories", but the current one isn't the right one.
 * Gindo 02:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

(1) Reply by Oneismany

 * My position is that there are many unresolved questions regarding which sources are "notable" and which sources are "reliable" on this topic. The theory that 19 hijackers plus Osama orchestrated the 9/11 attacks is certainly the loudest and the most often repeated argument.  However it does not deserve to be treated as a "fact" and every other point of view portrayed as "lacking evidence."  The same news media sources that promoted the Osama and Al-Qaeda connection to 9/11 also promoted the Saddam Hussein connection to 9/11, which never had any evidence and has been thoroughly repudiated.  So I do not see why the Osama et al theories deserve respect in the main 9/11 article but none in the "conspiracies" article.  Meanwhile there is a host of sources regarding evidence that other parties may have been involved in the attacks, not to mention extant contradictions in the widely accepted accounts of 9/11, but many of these sources are excluded for supposed lack of prominence or reliability, exaggerating the "lack of evidence" for alternate theories.  This is obviously a very emotional topic to many people, and so it will naturally take a concerted effort to develop a "neutral" point of view about the subject.  In the meantime the truth is alive and well on Wikipedia in the form of the status quo, no matter how questionable it might be; and falsehood is any heresy against the status quo, no matter how verifiable it is.  Oneismany (talk) 04:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

(1) Reply by JzG

 * A conspiracy theory is defined thus in our article: "A conspiracy theory usually attributes the ultimate cause of an event or chain of events (usually political, social, pop cultural or historical events), or the concealment of such causes from public knowledge, to a secret, and often deceptive plot by a group of powerful or influential people or organizations". So:
 * Even if these theories were true, because they assert that conspiracies exist, then they are conspiracy theories. That is what a conspiracy theory is, after all: a theory that demands a secret conspiracy in high places. Can anyone tell me one of the so-called "alternative theories" that does not include conspiracy as a core element?
 * As far as I can tell, all of the "alternative theories" fulfil the standard definition of a conspiracy theory: repudiating a simple and widely-accepted explanation; preferring instead an explanation that imputes evil motives to powerful people; asserting a widespread conspiracy of silence including covering up the evidence that would supposedly prove the theory.
 * How do reliable independent sources describe these theories? As far as I can tell, independent sources describe them exactly as we do, as conspiracy theories.  As far as I can tell, the only people who use any terminology other than "conspiracy theory" to describe these hypotheses, which range from the absurd to the simply implausible, are those promoting said theories.
 * We've had over six years of relentless POV-pushing here, and in that time no credible evidence has been produced to undermine the official and widely-accepted explanation. Terrorists flew airliners into buildings.  Some people choose to believe otherwise. Most of them turn out to be kooks. End of story, really. Guy (Help!) 14:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

(1) Reply by [add yourself]
Block quote

Is conspiracy appropriate?
(you can still reply to question #1, too; I encourage it) 2. What are your thoughts on "conspiracy" within the title? Does it properly indicate the contents of the article? that is, if "theory" weren't appended on. Also, is this layout working?

(2) Reply by Wayne

 * Depends on usage.
 * To clarify..Because the official theory is disputed and as yet not completely proven I believe the September 11, 2001 attacks article should be split and have the theory speculation separated from the undeniable facts of the attack. For example I would have no problem with 911 Alternative conspiracy Theories if there was an article called 911 Official conspiracy Theory (or 911 Conspiracy Theory) as both would follow the same form. To address equal weight, the alternative article can stress these theories have less credibility and support than the mainstream theory.
 * Conspiracy would also be acceptable (in my mind) in the title 911 Conspiracy Hypotheses as Hypothesis is linguistically accurate terminology and doesn't hold the same perjoritive implications although I prefer the word "Alternative" to be added or the official theory would qualify for inclusion as one of many as it already does with the current wording.
 * Uses that appear perjoritive should be avoided.
 * Layout works for me. Addressing one question at a time avoids flooding and replies trying to address multiple questions at once and doing justice to none.

(2) Reply by Ice Cold Beer
The use of the word conspiracy in the title and throughout the article is indeed appropriate. The theories are referred to as conspiracy theories by reliable sources, and are most commonly known as such. The main contention, as I see it, from those wishing to remove the word conspiracy from the title is that use of the term conspiracy theory is pejorative and therefore should not be in the title. They would be right, if conspiracy theory were being used pejoratively; but it is not.

In the non-pejorative sense, a conspiracy theory is defined as a theory which involves two or more people plotting to break the law, and the connotations of the term conspiracy theory usually suggest a government coverup. In the pejorative sense, the term conspiracy theory is used to dismiss a theory without really discussing the merits of the theory. The article does engage the merits of 9/11 conspiracy theories, and uses reliable sources to show that they are complete bunk. Therefore, the use of the term conspiracy theory is not pejorative.

Furthermore, there are plenty of terms that are sometimes used pejoratively, such as Democrat and Republican. However, we do not hesitate to identify people as Democrats or Republicans (or X), because that is what they are. And conspiracy theories are precisely that: conspiracy theories&mdash;regardless of whether or not some people choose to use the term pejoratively. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

(2) Reply by Chris

 * I think my response above makes my position clear. //   Chris  (complaints) • (contribs) 20:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

(2) Reply by Ireneshusband
The idea that "conspiracy theories" are just "theories about conspiracies" is like saying that a greenhouse is a house that is green. "Conspiracy theory" is a compound noun which is not the sum of its parts. It is pejorative in a way that "theory" and "conspiracy" by themselves usually are not. A police investigation into organised criminal activity would normally be based on a hypothesis which one might call a theory about a conspiracy, but one would rarely hear a police detective being described as a "conspiracy theorist". The only exception I know of is Michael Ruppert, a former LAPD officer who went on to do very important work for the 9/11 Truth movement. He was branded a conspiracy theorist as part of an intense campaign to vilify and ridicule him. Therefore I would only consider accepting the word "conspiracy" in the title if it were clearly distanced from the word "theory". That would be hard to do. Getting rid of the word "conspiracy" is not a big problem. ireneshusband (talk) 05:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

(2) Reply by Xiutwel

 * 1) Allegations of 9/11 government complicity would be appropriate. The word conspiracy is somewhat appropriate, but also confusing, because the mainstream account is also a conspiracy. The word theory is only partly appropriate, because many of those who question the 9/11 White House doctrine do indeed entertain theories about what might be the truth in case the offical version would turn out to be a lie. But others stop at the point of raising questions: they offer no alternative theory, they just want their questions answered. In conclusion I think the title would best cover the subject contents when neither of these words (conspiracy theory) are used. (The redirect can stay, so that anyone searching for "conspiracy theory" can still find the article.)
 * 2) I have a little fantasy: I believe that a group of good-faith editors wants to guard Wikipedia from being seen as promoting "insulting nonsense". They have a strong opinion on what is true and what is false, and they want to push their POV, which they do not see as POV but as "the truth", supported by reliable sources who share their belief in the White House doctrine. In defending their ideal they are prepared to violate any Wikipedia guideline: since their cause is just, no guideline should stand in their way: the guidelines were not designed to obstruct doing the "right thing", which is: "delete all the 9/11 conspiracy cruft". Everything helps in this "holy crusade", including using pejorative titles for articles such as this one. I believe it is not much use discussing this title without first reaching agreement that:       the 9/11 truth movement represents a significant minority view, and should be treated with respect, and written about sympathetically, neither endorsing nor opposing it. We (Wikipedia) should remain WP:NEUTRAL and in my opinion these editors should set aside their personal feelings towards this issue: they cloud their judgement. In my opinion we do not need an Inquisition here:  The Wikipedia guidelines will do.  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 13:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Where articles have descriptive names, the given name must be neutrally worded and must not carry POV implications.WP
 * 4) Chris has made an interesting observation: In the case of naming events, non-neutral names are allowed. In Naming conventions (events), the issue of name-neutrality has a priority below "common name for the event". We agree 9/11 theories are not exactly an event, but he says this event-naming guideline is the closest applicable and I say we should not apply it here. Example: October surprise sortof describes an event. It could have all sorts of connotations for people, and one might argue that Unexpected opinion poll affecting event would be more neutral, and I can see why there is a policy against this. I argue that the same need not apply here. 06:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) layout: I like it. For me, I would prefer the captions to be subsections, so I need not search my own paragraph amongst all the others when editing. I like very much to keep one's opinion in a confined space, in stead of diluted over endless dialogues, crosstalk and subject changes ! Referring to each others views remains possible, see above.06:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll make the replies headers. I'm worried about the TOC getting way too big, though :p If anyone can think of a way around this (or if isn't an issue), I'm all ears :)
 * As for cross-talk, I do discourage it. I'll make a more explicit statement on that, but I'm not going to entirely disallow crosstalk, since many editors have good points to make that helps me for the questions. Editors are allowed to defend themselves from claims, but my principle worry is talking past each other and getting no-where. Xavexgoem (talk) 13:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) I like the way Ireneshusband above showed why the term is prejorative in the ears of so many people. Very well put. I feel the same way. &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 09:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) I thank Aude for his extensive proof below that the current term is the most common name. (I believe there existed no dissensus on that, which explaines the current name has been tolerated for so long.) What it is going to boil down to, I think, is which policy should have priority now: NEUTRAL or COMMON ?  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 09:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) I am starting a section on the talk page to discuss the content of the article which title we are discussing. &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 10:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

(2) Reply by Haemo

 * I'm not clear what the question is requesting &mdash; I'm assuming it means "does the title '9/11 conspiracy (or conspiracies)' properly indicate the subject of the article". Well, in a sense it does, and it a sense it doesn't &mdash; it does in the sense that all conspiracy theories involve conspiracies.  It doesn't in the sense that "conspiracy theory" has a precise academic meaning, which has been widely applied to the theories in question by reliable sources. "9/11 conspiracies" is vague, not commonly used, and doesn't give the reader a clear understanding of what the article discusses.
 * As for the layout, I like it &mdash; expect that people need to not reply in the middle of my responses. That kind of defeats the purpose.  --Haemo (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That was the purpose. I'll try to keep it at a minimum. Xavexgoem (talk) 07:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, to clarify: I'm not suggesting using the title "9/11 conspiracies"; I'm just curious as to whether the term "conspiracy" is appropriate, and what the thoughts are to term. Xavexgoem (talk) 13:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, yes &mdash; it's the operative part of term used for these theories. It has a specific academic meaning. -Haemo (talk) 20:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

(2) Reply by Okiefromokla
"Conspiracy" is the only word that accurately describes the beliefs of this social movement. Let's look at this objectively: "Conspiracy" in the context of a "conspiracy theory" implies something that is not substantiated. "Alternative Theory" implies something that is on equal grounds with the mainstream theory. In the case of the 9/11 conspiracy theories, "alternative" does not work. The overwhelming majority of engineers, scientists, historians, and other experts, agree that the mainstream account of 9/11 is true. Therefore, there are simply no reliable sources to indicate that these theories are accepted as plausible alternate accounts. They are notable on Wikipedia, instead, only under the "social phenomenon" headline (as are pseudosciences). And under that headline, there is only one common name for this social phenomenon, and that is "9/11 Conspiracy Theories". There is nothing to indicate that "9/11 alternate theories" is a more commonly-used name for the same phenomenon, if it is used at all. Okiefromokla questions? 23:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

conspiracy theory • noun: a belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for an unexplained event. alternative theory • noun: often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation; is not necessarily based on facts; is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. Which definition covers all the theories and is more accurate? If alternative implies "equality" with the mainstream theory, you are in effect, saying the mainstream theory is not based on facts or consistent with reality. Wayne (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Lets be even more objective.
 * Where are you getting those definitions? One online dictionary gives "alternate" this definition: "A person acting in the place of another; a substitute." That certainly implies neutrality. What I am saying is there are no reliable sources that outline a true scientific disagreement with the mainstream account, or, more to the point, there are no reliable sources that accept the plausibility of these conspiracy theories. Okiefromokla questions? 22:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you provide any reliable sources or other appropriate evidence to support your proposition that "alternative" implies equality? The first use of the word that comes to mind when I think of it is "alternative energy. What is now alternative energy will only be such so long as most energy production is from fossil fuels and nuclear power. After that it becomes mainstream and is no longer alternative.


 * In any case the theories are accepted as plausible accounts by a significant minority of reliable sources, unless academics, licensed engineers, and licensed architects don't count. ireneshusband (talk) 09:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Your point is valid, but I remind you that "alternative energy" is an alternative because it is just as feasible as conventional energy. To summarize dictionary.com, an "alternative" is a viable second option that is different from the mainstream options. Hence "alternative fuels" or "alternative lifestyle" or "alternative diet" - all plausible second choices. These theories are not merely "alternates": to be as specific as possible, they are "conspiracy theories" (allegations that the U.S. government hides the true story of 9/11 to some degree, or Israel hides it, etc.) Moreover, this term rightfully does not imply equality between the mainstream account and these "alternative" theories. Such theories are not considered viable or accepted as plausible truths: There are simply no reliable sources summarizing and stating directly (see WP:OR) that there is scientific doubt about the mainstream theory or that any one alternative theory is accepted by some consensus of the scientific community. If you find such a source, let us know; it would revolutionize 9/11-related articles. Okiefromokla questions? 22:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

(2) Reply by Gindo

 * The word "theory" isn't the issue. It is the word "conspiracy" which is unclear, pejorative, and inaccurate given the broad content in the article.Gindo 02:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify this? Xavexgoem (talk) 07:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

(2) Reply by Oneismany

 * No, imho conspiracy is not appropriate because it is against the Constitution ;).  In the title "conspiracy" is a specific use of the word which, in conjunction with the colloquial "theory" indicating "not-a-fact," portrays the subject as nutty or wacky.  Blame it on the X-Files or on Mel Gibson if you like  ;).  Or on a concerted PR campaign for the last sixty years to condition citizens to dismiss conspiracy claims out of hand.  On the other hand it might be okay if we said "allegations of conspiracy," or something.  But as it stands "conspiracy" is like a new swear word.  (I suppose the layout is working. :) )  Oneismany (talk) 04:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

(2) Reply by Aude
WP:COMMONNAME says to use the most common name that people coming to Wikipedia would use. There is absolutely no merit in the proposal to rename this page, since "9/11 conspiracy theories" is by far the most common name. --Aude (talk) 01:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) "Conspiracy theories" is by far the most common name for these theories, best known and used by news sources and reliable sources. 3,260 times  For example, "9/11 Conspiracy Theorist to Leave Brigham Young"    By comparison, use of "alternative theories" by the news media 92 times
 * 2) Use of conspiracy theories in books 411 compared to "alternative theories" 25
 * 3) Google Scholar: "9/11 conspiracy theories" - 20 times compared to "9/11 alternative theories" 0 times
 * 4) Also, to put the terms "9/11 conspiracy theories" in perspective compared with "9/11 alternative theories", take a look at Google Trends for these terms:  (people searching for "9/11 alternative theories" is so tiny that you can't really see it on the graph. Though look at the bar graph showing regions, cities, and languages. "9/11 alternative theories" is a tiny blip on these graphs, but you can see it compared to "9/11 conspiracy theories". Also, here's the results including "9/11 conspiracy" . This is very telling that 9/11 conspiracy theories is by far the most commonly used and known term by the broader public.
 * the most common name that people coming to Wikipedia would use &mdash; a redirect can solve that. You make a case why the name is permitted, but what harm would be done choosing a less controversial name? Can you explain? &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Xiutwel - the name "9/11 conspiracy theories" is not controversial. A spade is a spade.  That's what these theories are called overwhelmingly by reliable sources (which we use in our articles).  That's what they are and it's a neutral name, per WP:NPOV. --Aude (talk) 01:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you disagree with me then, that "conspiracy theory" has the connotation of a "fantasy" rather than a "hypothesis"? (Even though not always intended.) And which sentence in WP:NPOV are you referring to when you claim the name is neutral? &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * See my response to this question. Okiefromokla questions? 23:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As has already been said innumerable times in the course of this debate, what "reliable sources" call something has absolutely no weight according to Wikipedia policy when it comes to naming articles.
 * According to WP:COMMONNAME, it is appropriate to make exceptions to the rule when it comes to names that are confusing or names that are offensive. I addition, there is the guideline in naming conflict which states, in effect, that article names should not prejudge the content. All three of these conditions apply in this case. ireneshusband (talk) 06:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

(2) Reply by JzG

 * What Aude said. Try a Google Fight. I see plenty of attempts here to argue the case for these theories (not what we're here for, Oneismany), but no credible grounds for describing them as anything other than conspiracy theories.  Guy (Help!) 14:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So what do you make then of the stipulation in WP:naming conflict that the names of articles should not prejudge their content, or that article names should not be derogatory to large groups of people? ireneshusband (talk) 09:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The title does not prejudge the content, it accurately reflects how the subject is named in the real world. It is not Wikipedia's job to enage in special pleading on behalf of the Truthers. You say that naming the article 9/11 conspiracy theories is offensive, confusing and prejudges the content.  All three assertions require that you first of all accept that the theories have some validity.  It is not in any way confusing to refer to 9/11 conspiracy theories as just that, nobody is likely to be confused.  Some members of the Roman Catholic Church find the title of that article grossly offensive - one user declared it his mission to restore to the Catholic Church Her true name or some such, but WP:NPOV trumps offence to minorities every time, as with the Muhammad images, the fact that we don't assert that Catholic == Roman Catholic (which other Catholic traditions dispute) and so on.  So changing the title to avoid hurting the feelings of holders of a minority view is a poor idea and not what that paragraph in COMMONNAME is about. And it doesn't prejudge the content either, it describes the content as the reliable sources describe it, which is an entirely different matter. Guy (Help!) 11:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

(2) Reply by MONGO
It would take a conspiracy (2 or more people, look it up) to pull off this impossible to execute event.--MONGO 17:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Is the official story a conspiracy theory?
3. Is the official story a conspiracy theory?

(3) Reply by Pokipsy76
Yes if by "conspiracy theory" one is meaning "theory about conspiracy". No if by "conspiracy theory" one is meaning "ubran folkloristic theory". --Pokipsy76 (talk) 13:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

(3) Reply by Wayne

 * Technically and by definition it absolutely is. Even the official theory is not proven fact. It has some proven points but mostly it consists of supposition, best guess and "most likely" scenarios.
 * General usage tends to avoid the word conspiracy as those supporting the official theory (media, gov etc.) tend to use the word to create a gulf between the theories and by extention, imply alternative theories are not worth considering.
 * It needs to be remembered that the vast majority of past Conspiracy Theories have been proven to contain some truth. As such, if you exclude the more extremist theories there is little difference between official and alternative theories apart from the official being more likely and having marginally more evidence. Wayne (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

(3) Reply by Ice Cold Beer
No. Use of the term conspiracy theory connotes a secret government operation. The so-called official story is therefore not a conspiracy theory. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * According to which dictionary? ireneshusband (talk) 06:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

(3) Reply by Chris

 * Only in the same technical sense that the Theory of Evolution is a theory. Both are theories simply because scientific evidence cannot prove details of a historical event.  But science and modern investigative methods can prove what happened beyond a shadow of a doubt.  Despite the outcry of a vocal minority, the events of September 11th are generally accepted to have occurred according to the "government story".  Was a conspiracy involved?  Yes.  Is there a theory as to what happened?  Yes.  But that doesn't make the official series of events a "conspiracy theory".  //   Chris  (complaints) • (contribs) 20:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * On what grounds can you say that "the events of September 11th are generally accepted to have occurred according to the government story"?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 14:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have yet to see a properly conducted and worded survey indicating that more people believe the various conspiracy theories than believe the "official story". If you have such evidence, please present it.  But I'm not holding my breath.  //   Chris  (complaints) • (contribs) 15:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * But I am not claiming that "the events of September 11th are not generally accepted to have occurred according to the government story". It's up to people who claim to know what is generally accepted to support their claims.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 16:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It depends on which conspiracy theory. For example polls consistantly show 60%+ believe the government had forewarning, 80%+ that the government are lying about 911. These are conspiracy theories and have majority support. Even the theory the government deliberately let, or helped, the buildings fall gets 35%+ support which is a substantial minority. That sentence needs to have the word "main" inserted in "the...events". Wayne (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Whether what Chris's confidence in science etc. is well founded is of absolutely no consequence. What he is basically saying is that the title should indicate that his view is correct and that other views are not. However Naming conflict says that this is completely unacceptable, and that article titles should not prejudge their content.
 * What does Naming conflict have to do with Question #3? //   Chris  (complaints) • (contribs) 20:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well you started out your answer by saying that the official story was true beyond a shadow of a doubt, which is obviously what I was replying to. However what you said after that doesn't seem to have any logical connection to that. Unfortunately I was tired when I left that last comment, which is why my grammar was bad, why I didn't spot the non sequitur and why I forgot to sign my post. ireneshusband (talk) 09:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

(3) Reply by Ireneshusband
I believe the official story to be false. However calling it a conspiracy theory would imply that everyone who believes it has a defective personality, which I certainly do not believe. "Conspiracy theory" is just too heavily loaded to be useful. ireneshusband (talk) 10:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

(3) Reply by Xiutwel

 * in the neutral sense: the official story widely perceived as a conspiracy. It is an account of how a group of 21+ men conspired, with years of planning and preperation. However, when we see the attacks as an enemy strike, the term "conspiracy" is inappropriate. When "our side" plans to bomb Saddam Hussein, that too is prepared without telling him first, but we do not call it a conspiracy but a covert operation. /X
 * My personal best guess is that the alleged hijackers were patsies, not guilty of hijacking. (I know I may be mistaken and it's only a guess, and I am committed to writing about all possibilities neutrally and fairly on Wikipedia.) But in that case, rather than saying "the official story is a conspiracy", I would say "the official theory is just a story" &mdash; told by conspirators. (In fact, it has been mentioned that the 9-11 report reads like a novel.) (Which might be just a coincidence.) &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 12:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

(3) Reply by Haemo

 * In the sense that it is a "theory" about a "conspiracy" yes. In the sense that, as literally everyone has argued, that "conspiracy theory" has a particular, and distinct academic meaning, no.  Conspiracy theories are not just theories about a conspiracy; the term refers to a very particular sociological phenomenon which has been explicitly documented in academic, and journalistic, writing.  Chris' point about the "theory" versus "fact" argument has something important to say &mdash; considering that reliable sources report the "official theory" as fact.
 * Question: On what grounds one has to decide if a "theory" about a "conspiracy" belongs to the "very particular sociological phenomenon" called "conspiracy theories"?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 13:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Basically you are saying that "conspiracy theory", by definition, is a belief that is false. WP:naming conflict says that article titles should not prejudge their content. Somehow I must have forgotten to mention that. ireneshusband (talk) 10:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The argument that the "mainstream account is also a conspiracy theory" is nothing more, or less, than an abuse of the English language designed to deflect criticism &mdash; it applies two distinct terms with the same English spelling without regard to how the terms are used. It has the same merit and semantic value as the following:
 * "I was very sick last weekend, because I had eaten a fluke with dinner."
 * "What! Officer, arrest this man &mdash; he just said that he ate a fluke last weekend!"


 * Which is to say, none. --22:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Haemo, I am confused: are you still saying the term was used in the neutral sense in the current article title, and can stay, or are you agreeing we should change it? &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 12:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. The academic use is indeed neutral and is used neutrally in both journalism and academia; the pejorative use is colloquial, and is derived from the fact that most conspiracy theories are nuts. --Haemo (talk) 19:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I object to use of the word "most". Some may be nuts, many may possibly be nuts. However, many conspiracy theories are no less plausable than the official theory. It is interesting that your statement indicates a personal belief that the term is pejorative. Wayne (talk) 03:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I use the term in the general sense, not referring to this subject area. Given that there are at least as many theories about the nature of the reptilian overlords controlling the House of Windsor, as there are about 9/11 in total, I'd say it's a fair statement.  And as I have said many, many times, there is a pejorative sense.  The term is not pejorative in and of itself.  I thought I had made this abundantly clear.  --Haemo (talk) 05:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The "academic" uses of the term are generally fairly derogatory – Popper's conspiracy theory of society for example. However this is irrelevant. The main criterion for the naming of articles is how they will be used and understood by lay readers. Therefore it is the colloquial use of the term that matters in this case. If the colloquial use is pejorative, then it is not suitable to be the title of an article. ireneshusband (talk) 07:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If the term has a neutral and a pejorative meaning, then using it will be ambiguous to our readers. Also you say the term academically refers to a "sociological phenomenon". I believe that you mean: "sociological phenomenon of people making up theories because they cannot cope with the truth". Then the current title means: 9/11 delusional theories. If we define the debate as: "are these theories true", then this cannot be neutral. The only neutral interpretation of the term is when one is not having these negative connotations -- which i.m.o. is "very seldom". Even members of the Truth movement who have adopted the term conspiracy theorist for themselves do so despite the negative connotations: they choose not to evade the putting down, but standing up to it. Similar to the circumstance that Black people are now calling themselves Niggers among themselves. They adopt the name that was originally given to put them down. Wikipedia should not use such a term as a "neutral article title", regardless of it being common practice. &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 08:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, because we don't use it in a pejorative context. The theories themselves refer are a sociological phenomenon, in the same way that any meme is. It most certainly does not mean "9/11 delusional theories". --Haemo (talk) 02:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * But you are implying that all the claims listed in the article belongs to the "very particular sociological phenomenon". This is a conroversial implication and is a matter of opinion.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 14:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a matter of opinion if the 9/11 conspiracy theories are social phenomena? If they are not social phenomena, they have no notability here. It is appropriate to compare these theories to pseudoscience &mdash; we don't include pseudosciences under the headline of plausible alternatives to science; we include them because they are notable in a sociological context (many people believe them). Okiefromokla questions? 22:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's try to make the concepts clear. It was said that "conspiracy theories" (in general) are distinguished by "theories involving conspiracies" because they are a "very particular sociological phenomenon" stutied by psichologicts and sociologists. So as they coinsitutes a category that is distinguished from the category of "theories about conspiracies", I was just saying that it is a metter of opinion to say that all the claims in the articles are actually "conspiracy theories" (notable for sociological reasons) rather than just "theories involving conspiracies" (notable for their content). If you think it is not a matter of opinion then which authority would support the POV that all these claims are all "conspiracy theories" in order to assume it as a fact rathar than just an opinion?.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 09:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No. Pseudoscience, if I am not mistaken, generally does not have any reliable sources to support it. However there are a considerable number of reliable sources who disbelieve the official 9/11 story. If a view is held by a significant minority then it should get fair coverage in wikipedia commensurate with the extent to which it is believed. Jimbo Wales said "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents". It is easy to name prominent 9/11 dissenters. Therefore at least some of the dissenting 9/11 theories should be taken seriously and so the comparison with pseudoscience is completely inappropriate. ireneshusband (talk) 10:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a good point. Does every theory have a prominent adherent who has a BLP? Xavexgoem (talk) 01:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry to break in. Yes, there are of course "prominent adherents", but I would argue that they are prominent within the truth community, rather than within society at large.  01:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So their articles would focus largely on their theories? They do have articles, correct? Xavexgoem (talk) 01:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, we have reliable sources calling them just that, so I don't think your objection has any merit. --Haemo (talk) 00:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You should be more specific here: sources are not reliable for everything they say. If a journalist describes a theory as unreasonable it does not count as a reliable source for claiming that the theory is unreasonable, it counts just as the journalist's opinion. So which "reliable sources" do you think would be conclusive to decide if a claim belongs to "conspiracy theories" Vs "theories about conspiracies"? And which source are you actually considering reliable about that and about which "conspiracy claims"?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 09:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In other words, "I fundamentally disagree with our policies on Wikipedia and this forms the basis for my disagreement". The statement (X is a conspiracy theory) is a factual one, not an opinion, and when a journalist reports it as a fact, they are acting as a reliable source for that fact.  If we adopted your interpretation of policy here, all factual statements made by reliable sources would be opinions, and this whole project would be a waste of time.  --Haemo (talk) 18:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You say that the statement "X is a conspiracy theory" written by journalists is a factual one. Ok, let's assume it is really a factual statement. This means that the journalist (that is not an expert) certainly had some objective way to decide the truth of this statement without be influenced by his opinion. Clearly the only way a journalist could know if the statement is true is to check some kind of reliable source. If the source is not secret then obviously we must be able to check such source. This means that if "X is a conspiracy theory" (written by the journalist) is a factual statements then we must be able to provide sources for this fact different from what journalists wrote. If such a source can't be find than we must conclude that it's just the journalist's opinion. Can you provide sources that could allow a journalist to check that that the claims on the article are actually "conspiracy theories"?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm with Haemo: You're asking us to redefine our policies on Verifiability. By your standards, secondary sources would be totally stricken as reliable sources and we'd have to rely on interviews and primary-source documents.  Sorry, but that's ridiculous.  //   Chris  (complaints) • (contribs) 20:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You are begging the question and making improper generalizations. I'm not saying anything about secondary sources in general: I'm just disputing that the claim "X is a conspiracy theory" written by a journalist can be considered to be a factual statement (at least in this case). You can easily show that I am wrong and you are right: you just need to exibit a source that could be used by a journalist to check that the statement "X is a conspiracy theory" is objectively a true fact for the claims in the article under discussion. So come on: show this source and we will be able to end this endless discussion and keep the title you prefer.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 08:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The point is that the argument you are making about secondary sources in this particular instance can be extended generally. What you're saying is "I dispute the claim of a reliable source.  In order to use this source, you must therefore produce a primary source supporting their statement."  That's wildly at odds with our policies and, as Chris says, fundamentally redefines that policy. --Haemo (talk) 19:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You have just declared and still not proved that the statement is factual and not an opinion, therefore you can't assume it to counter my argument. I am just asking you to prove that the statement is factual. Notice that since the term "conspiracy theory" has also the literary meaning of "theory involving a conspiracy" a journalist could use the expression without even knowing if the theory belong to the "sociological phenmenon". Therefore you cannot in any way deduce that a theory belongs to the "sociological phenomenon" of "conspiracy theories" just because a journalist called it "conspiracy theory". You definitely need other arguments or sources.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

'''As has already been made clear dozens of times already in this debate, what "reliable sources" call something has absolutely no bearing on the naming of articles. Naming conventions makes absolutely no mention of reliable sources. Please no one waste any more precious time arguing about this total red herring.''' ireneshusband (talk) 07:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The point under discussion was not directly about the title but about what are the *facts*. The question is: do the claims in the article *objectively* belong to the socio-psychological phenomenon called "conspiracism"? Which source could be considered "reliable" when saying such a thing?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 08:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps those which meet our criteria? --Haemo (talk) 19:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact I asked you many times to provide a source proving that the theories belong to the "sociological phenomenon" of the conspiracy theories but you didn't. Obviously a journalist using the word "conspiracy theory" wouldn't tell us if the theory belongs to this phenomenon or is just a "theory involving a conspiracy". Also editorials reporting opinions wouldn't (obviously) suffice.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 20:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The Time Magazine case specifically discusses them in the context described. --Haemo (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If you are talking about this it could hardly certify as a fact that all the relevant claims in the article are part of the sociological phenomenon called conspiracism:
 * it cites explicitly just controlled demolition and missile inside the pentagon while our article includes a lot of other claims, questions and alleged anomalies
 * it is disputable wheter its assuming that the cited theories are conspiracy theory is a description of a fact or an editorial opinion
 * it is not clear from the article if the term "conspiracy theory" used in the academic meaning or as "teories about conspiracy".
 * Other sources?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 20:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

(3) Reply by Okiefromokla
No. In the literal sense, it is indeed a theory about a conspiracy. However, in the context of soial reality, it is not a "conspiracy theory." The word "conspiracy" when used in the phrase "conspiracy theory" is almost a universal idiom in the English language: It has a meaning that is slightly different than its literal translation. For example, any military action is a conspiracy in the literal translation of the word: It was planned out covertly by a group to obtain a harmful goal. But, for example, within the commonplace, the mainstream view about the Japanese attack of Pearl Harbor is not a "conspiracy theory," though it is indeed a theory about a conspiracy.

Furthermore, the mainstream account of 9/11 is not a theory in the every-day context of the word (unlike in the scientific context, the common meaning of the word "theory" implies something that isn't substantiated). Therefore, "conspiracy theory" describes this social movement more accurately than "alternate theories", and does not, by any acceptable stretch, describe the scientifically accepted mainstream account of the attacks. Okiefromokla questions? 23:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The article is not about sociology. It is about what happened on 9/11. It is about representing alternative viewpoints. It is fundamental to wikipedia that alternative viewpoints are represented. If the article becomes one about a "sociological phenomenon, then the views of 9/11 dissidents will not be fairly represented.


 * This argument that the article is about a "sociological phenomenon" is a new one and seems only to have appeared now that the "It's what reliable sources call it" argument has completely collapsed. If this argument is so strong, why didn't you or anyone else bring it up before in the current or previous incarnations of the renaming debate? Let's get back on track and stop all this nonsense. The issue is: What should an article representing dissident views of what happened on 9/11 be called? ireneshusband (talk) 10:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This article is most certainly not about what happened on 9/11. This article is about the conspiracy theories relating to that happened on 9/11. Let's be clear on that. These differing viewpoints are indeed notable in a sociological context just as the conspiracy theories relating to the moon landing are notable under that headline. However, I understand that believers of a moon-landing hoax would view such an article as an "alternative viewpoint" and may take issue with someone describing it as notable only in a sociological context. But, unless there are reliable sources that say the official 9/11 account is truly objected to by the scientific community, any "alternate" views are notable only because many people believe them: hence they have "sociological notability" like pseudoscience, the moon landing, etc. I have only seen sources acknowledging that there is disbelief of the official account, but there are no such reliable sources to indicate that these "alternate" theories are actually accepted by the scientific community. Okiefromokla questions? 21:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

(3) Reply by Oneismany

 * In response to the question, is the official story [of 9/11] a conspiracy theory, that depends on what you mean by the "official story." A common criticism of government-critical accounts of 9/11 is "there is no official story," and that is true in the sense that there is not one single coherent narrative of the events of that day.  For example, the government and media reported three mutually contradictory stories as to why the hijacked airplanes were never intercepted by military aircraft.  The first story was that no fighter jets were scrambled before the airplanes hit the WTC.  The second story was that fighter jets were scrambled too late to intercept the airplanes. The third story was that fighter jets were scrambled in time, but due to confusion they were not able to intercept the airplanes in time.  Thusly the military shifted the blame from themselves onto the FAA.  The third story is the only one which appears in the 9/11 Commission Report.


 * Is the "official story" the account in the 9/11 Commission Report to the exclusion of every other story? But the Report makes the absurd case that Bush remained in the Sarasota elementary school for half an hour during the attacks to "project calm," despite the danger to himself being on live TV in a disclosed location.  It equally absurdly suggests that the Pentagon airspace was not as well defended as a nuclear power plant.  On the one hand the 9/11 Commission Report implies that officials did their best to prevent the attacks; on the other hand it also concludes that government agencies were incompetent, but without placing blame.  Furthermore the co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission, Kean and Hamilton, have recently stated that the CIA withheld videotapes of Al-Qaeda informants being tortured for information, and destroyed these tapes against US law.  We can only imagine what the 9/11 Commission may have learned from those tapes and the knowledge that some of their information came from tortured prisoners.  Tortured prisoners are not well known for giving accurate information, and indeed some of the tortured prisoners later recanted their stories.


 * 9/11 Commission Report omits pertinent information about the collapses of WTC 1 and 2, and barely mentions WTC 7. It casually dismisses concerns over the put options that were placed on American Airlines and United Airlines stocks shortly before the attacks, using circular logic.  The narrative of the 9/11 Commission Report includes but a small sample of the events documented by the Complete 9/11 Timeline (aka The Terror Timeline).  Does the "official story" include only the events that are expressly included in the 9/11 Commission Report, or just the events that are consistent with its conclusions?


 * The story that 19 hijackers, backed by Osama bin Laden, planned and executed the attacks on 9/11 is a story of a conspiracy, which might be accurately described as a literal "conspiracy theory," but it is also a theory of incompetence about the government response to that conspiracy. In this theory, the US government was an innocent victim of the attacks, and received no benefit from them, and had no motive in helping them come about.  But prior to the attacks members of the government expressed desires to invade Afghanistan and Iraq.  After the attacks that is what happened.  Prior to the attacks members of the government wished to increase US military spending.  After the attacks that is what happened.  Prior to the attacks members of the government wished to capture oil resources in Asia and the Middle East.  After the attacks that is what happened.  The fact is that the government benefited materially by the attacks; meanwhile the accused Islamofascists did not benefit materially by the attacks.  The fact that they did benefit from the attacks establishes that they had motive. The "incompetence theory" is inconsistent with the facts.


 * Osama bin Laden is no longer officially responsible for the 9/11 attacks, evinced by his FBI Most Wanted page, and statements by the FBI that there isn't enough hard evidence to accuse him. The US government promised before the invasion of Afghanistan that they would release their evidence that he was involved, but never have done so.  The case that he was involved is based on video tape confessions which contradict the denial that he originally gave through Al-Jazeera immediately following the events.  His videotape confessions have been challenged for their authenticity, and furthermore, do not seem to be qualify as hard evidence to the FBI.


 * Everyone claiming that "conspiracy theory" is a correct description of non-mainstream accounts of 9/11 also deny that it describes the "official theory" insofar as there is one. But upon investigation the "official theory" crumbles apart, not unlike the Twin Towers themselves.  If "conspiracy theory" is not meant as an epithet then where is the common ground among the current extant information regarding 9/11?  The 9/11 Commission Report is no longer authoritative even according to its authors.  If there is no authoritative account of 9/11 then why should Wikipedia entries be divided between "official" and "non-mainstream" accounts; and what reliable source can authoritatively establish this dichotomy?


 * "Conspiracy theory" is a loaded phrase which might literally describe some theories, but it changes its meaning depending on the intention of those who use it. Currently it is reported to be an academic term describing the social phenomena of "conspiracism," insofar as it is used consistently.  But its current use invites the editor or reader to equivocate on the literal or the figurative meaning of the phrase. If Wikipedia will continue using the phrase then I argue that we should explicitly state in every case that it is used, which meaning is intended.  If we employ the phrase where sources do not explicitly use it, then that qualifies as Wikipedia:NOR. Oneismany (talk) 19:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

(3) Reply by JzG

 * Is the official theory a conspiracy theory? No.  A conspiracy theory involves a covert operation concealed by those in power.  9/11 was a terrorist act, as the reliable sources agree pretty much unanimously.  As a terrorist act it was covert, not conspiracy.  Any reliable sources describing the official story as a conspiracy theory?  Guy (Help!) 14:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'm a stickler for accuracy. Oxford Dictionary - conspiracy theory • noun: a belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for an unexplained event. "Responsible for" NOT "concealed by". Or we can use an american dictionary....conspiracy theory • noun: a belief that a particular event is the result of a secret plot rather than the actions of an individual person or chance. The official theory is that an attack by al Qaeda was responsible for 911. Q.E.D.. Wayne (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The attacks are neither unexplained nor is the plot secretive. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There are many aspects of the official theory that are unexplained and NIST even admits in it's report that some of it's findings are supposition. If the plot was not secretive then the government must have known of it's existence. This is one of the conspiracy theories. Wayne (talk) 03:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me see now,
 * a belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for an unexplained event - Al Qaeda is not especially influential. For attacks like this, a judicious use of the term conspiracy theory would need influence at Governmental level. That is something claimed only by those we identify as conspiracy theorists, not by the mainstream view, which posits no body more influential than a band of tolerably well-organised zealots.
 * a belief that a particular event is the result of a secret plot rather than the actions of an individual person or chance - the official version also fails this definition of conspiracy theory as well, since it involves both individual actions and a not-terribly-secret campaign of terror.
 * So much for original research, what reliable sources identify the official version as a conspiracy theory? Guy (Help!) 19:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The definition says "a particular event" NOT "a not-terribly-secret campaign". The definition says "an individual person" NOT "individual actions". The Oxford Dictionary is NOT original research. While I accept you see may interpret it differently than myself please try to avoid rephrasing sources as mediation requires a higher standard of arguement than we are used to on an articles talk page. Wayne (talk) 04:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "what reliable sources identify the official version as a conspiracy theory?" A quick search found dozens such as the Chicago U law dept, the U. S. Department of Justice and the Times that all refer to al Qaedas "conspiracy to attack America". The term is very commonly used to cover all al Qaeda activities against the US and I assume they are responsible for 911. I dont think you can say everything they do is a conspiracy yet exclude their most notable action. Wayne (talk) 04:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course the official version describes a conspiracy. There's no dispute over that (or at least there shouldn't be). But don’t confuse that with a "conspiracy theory". In the idiomatic meaning of the term, "conspiracy theory" doesn't describe the official story. Was the actual plot to carry out the attack a conspiracy? Yes. But does “conspiracy theory” describe the 9/11 article? No. Okiefromokla questions? 05:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Right. So, what reliable sources describe the official version as a conspiracy theory?  None, that I have seen. Guy (Help!) 13:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

(3) Reply by MONGO
No, the "official story" is the only one that has been proven to be factual. The rest are simply conspiracy theories.--MONGO 17:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

What about splitting?
4. Given the wealth of information per theory, and the plausibility compared to each other; and the theories mentioned that build on the official story not brought up in 9/11, would a split be appropriate? Even hypothetically, would the views on the potential umbrella article 9/11 conspiracy theories (using that title) change? Could accommodations be made that don't use that title for a given theory?

(4) Reply by Pokipsy76
Instead of splitting in 2 articles we can just structure the article in a way that gives the due weight to the questions and alleged anomalies awith a subsection for to the extreme minority theories.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 14:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hearing that has been said, I agree that restructuring might be better than splitting. &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 16:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

(4) Reply by Wayne

 * 911 Conspiracy Theories are not equal. There are several such as the "pod", "energy beams" and "no plane at the Pentagon" that are not accepted (and been debunked) by the majority of Conspiracy theorists. These should possibly be in their own article to separate them from the more plausable theories.
 * That's what I meant (edit: that plausibility is on a scale, so to speak)... wasn't sure how to word it nice and neat :) Xavexgoem (talk) 17:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Almost all debunking articles give undue weight to the most extreme theories (see above) even though they are not generally supported by the truth movement. A good reason for a separate article. Even in the Wikipedia article the "no plane" theory has the largest section. A minority theory given such prominance discredits not only more widely held plausable theories but highly likely theories such as claims of incompetence. Wayne (talk) 16:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Opinion polls could be a good starting point for separation into at least their own section. I read an article some time ago where less than 10% support for conspiracy views on any subject were claimed to be meaningless as you will get similar support for any claim no matter how much evidence is available to contradict them. Larger percentages indicate insuffient evidence for the mainstream view. This is possibly supported by the fact that widely held conspiracy theories almost always prove to be at least partially true. Wayne (talk) 04:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * While I personally share your views about which theories are plausible and which are not, wikipedia is not about making judgements of truth. If we go that route we will end up in a serious mess. What we can do is to weight the various theories according to their degree of acceptance. Hopefully this would have much the same effect.
 * I think the establishment of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, which could be regarded as the beginning of an alternative orthodoxy, will be a great help to us in choosing what weight to give to a particular theory. It will also help us to address the issue of disinformation more effectively.
 * However I can't imagine any of this leading to anything other than sub-sub-articles, in which case we will still be stuck with the task of deciding what to call the current article. ireneshusband (talk) 07:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

(4) Reply by Ice Cold Beer
I'm not quite clear on what is being asked here. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC) I don't think that we need any more forks of the main 9/11 conspiracy theories article. We already have articles on the controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center and the 9/11 advance-knowledge debate. We need to be careful not to give too much coverage to these fringe conspiracy theories. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 00:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

(4) Reply by Chris
No, I think splitting this article is a horrible idea. Who is going to determine which of the conspiracy theories are plausible and which one's aren't? Since the academic community by and large rejects all the conspiracy theories, wouldn't they all go into the same article? And if you leave it to the 9/11 truth community to decide, would you title them Plausible 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Ridiculous 9/11 Conspiracy Theories? The current division we have now, between the generally accepted truth and the theories, is based on vast numbers of reliable sources backed by evidence. I don't see how these standards could possibly be applied to a separation of the theories. The Wikipedia community can't be bothered by the assertion that the truth movement is tarred by its association with pod and directed energy theorists. //  Chris  (complaints) • (contribs) 20:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * How do you feel about a separate section for theories considered fringe by the truthers instead of mixing them randomly throughout the article? Wayne (talk) 08:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I just discussed that. It's unacceptable to label and categorize them without any reliable sources doing so, and in general the materials published by the truther community aren't considered reliable.  //   Chris  (complaints) • (contribs) 14:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Are there any, though? Xavexgoem (talk) 18:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Herein lies the problem. According supporters of the OCT "Reliable sources" are a RS for the beliefs held by conspiracy theorists but their own websites are not reliable sources for their own beliefs. Wayne (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * They probably qualifies as fringe. However, I'd be surprised if there wasn't a RS somewhere that makes a point of not lumping pod theories with WTC 7, or, say, physical evidence vs. financial (et al) ones. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 9/11 Truth Movement ireneshusband (talk) 07:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't buy that proponents of one fringe theory can decide which other fringe theories are plausible or not. We can certainly say that some theories are not as highly regarded by the CT community as others, but splitting the article on this basis is not acceptable.  //   Chris  (complaints) • (contribs) 20:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The reliable sources lump them all together as conspiracy theories, it's not for us to try and separate them in this way. Guy (Help!) 09:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

There is almost universal agreement in the 911 truth community to exclude Morgan Reynolds (no planes), David Shayler (missiles and pods etc), Judy Wood (Beam Weapon) and several others. James Fetzer (who is the only prominent "truther" who promotes the three just mentioned) is also discredited by the truth movement. Fetzer in fact is banned from many 911 websites for his extreme views yet because he seeks publicity, is often promoted by the mainstream media as representing all truthers. In 2006, Scholars for 911 truth took a poll for the theories debunked by the truth movement as a whole (no planes, holograms, missile at Pentagon, pods and beam weapons) and only 10 people (TEN!) supported them. This statement by one of the more reliable 911 truth websites says it all: "bundling claims which have been widely and publicly rejected by the vast majority of the 9/11 truth community with genuine, serious claims is a classic example of discrediting by association". Wayne (talk) 09:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(4) Reply by Ireneshusband
I think that breaking up the article is certainly something to consider although, as others have noted, it would be a very difficult task. However there is no justification for using the term "conspiracy theory" in the title of any article except for conspiracy theory itself. The fact that various people disagree with many of the theories covered by the current article is of no consequence. Wikipedia policy is very clear that article titles should not prejudge their contents.

If renaming is shelved pending a reorganisation, then the renaming will never happen. It's as simple as that. Let's just not go there until we get the name properly sorted out.

(q4) Reply by Xiutwel

 * I agree with Wayne above that the theories which are tiny minority FRINGE within the significant minority view should be split into a seperate article, in order to make things less confusing for the editors and the readers. This split is also needed for us to reach consensus more easily on the new name for the article(s), I reckon. The splitting of content will lead to some discussions, but I believe it can be done. Further splitting between different levels and aspects of allegations of complicity could be done into sections in the article. /X
 * I agree with Ireneshusband above that neither new article should bare the name "conspiracy theories", because according to most wikipedians, it has non-neutral connotations. /X
 * Would Fringe theories regarding the September 11, 2001 attacks be acceptable for the tiny minority views? &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 12:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, if the above split fails, it would be helpful to seperate the theories from the unanswered questions plus alleged anomalies? The questions and anomalies are pretty finite, the theories are theoretically endless. /X 13:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

(4) Reply by Haemo
There's no way you could find reliable sources to back up the categorization of these theories in the manner described &mdash; we can barely find enough sources to back up notability of the theories even in general. The article is, right now, based on a lot of primary sourcing to support claims like "Some believe X" because there are no reliable sources to ascribe importance to a particular theory. All this would do is provoke a massive catfight, as people object to their pet theory being categorized as "debunked" or "ridiculous". --Haemo (talk) 22:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps to clarify &mdash; I don't have an issue with the concept in principle. I think we just can't do it in the manner suggested. If sources exist, I would be for it &mdash; however, they don't, and it would be a very bad idea to go forward without them. I'm thinking "Allegations of US state terrorism"-level bad. You seem to be mistaken about the "wealth" of information available &mdash; there really isn't that much, and what is there is not very "in depth". --Haemo (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand your concern with the RS. Could we perhaps define as fringe: those theories which have no books written about them? Or maybe these opinion polls can help us? &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 13:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Making judgments about which are, or are not, "fringe" based on criteria we make up is original research. The claim that "theory X is a fringe theory within conspiracy circles" is a factual claim, and we require reliable sources to support factual claims. These reliable sources simply do not exist in the overwhelming majority of cases. --Haemo (talk) 19:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * David Icke has written a lot of books, so we could have a problem with that one. However, as I have said above, I think the development of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice may be the beginning of an alternative orthodoxy, which would make this business a lot easier. ireneshusband (talk) 07:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not the in business of promoting "emerging orthodoxies", alternative or otherwise. --Haemo (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with that. However there is good reason to think that such an orthodoxy will emerge, and if it does, that will certainly make it easier to contemplate splitting the article up into smaller, better defined topics. ireneshusband (talk) 09:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

(4) Reply by Okiefromokla
It would be very hard to prove notability or find sources for all but a few individual variations of conspiracy theories. As far as I know, an individual "theory" may have a very small backing if it was championed by a celebrity or author, but outside of that, they are simply too minute to look at with any practicality on an individual level.

Because of the wide variance between what any given individual may believe, and all the variations of the theories, it's better to look at this in an encyclopedic context as a single movement. If a specific theory is out there that has a particularly notable backing, it could have a main article. But the main “conspiracies” article should not be split. Okiefromokla questions? 22:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ps: This question was a little confusing to me, so if I didn't answer it fully please let me know. Okiefromokla questions? 22:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

(4) Reply by Oneismany
I think the main article and the "conspiracies" (or "responsibility") articles should be re-organized to better reflect a neutral presentation of the topic, before any additional splits are considered. Oneismany (talk) 19:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

(4) Reply by JzG

 * It's not clear to me what problem we're supposed to be solving by splitting the article. If the problem is that some Truthers find some theories too way-out even for them, then I'm sorry but that's not Wikipedia's problem.  If editors consider some theories to be too fringe and held only by a very tiny minority, then maybe they should just be pruned out per WP:WEIGHT.  But this distinction is very much an in-universe thing; I don't see any suggestion that reliable independent sources are dividing the theories along these lines. Guy (Help!) 10:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

(4) Reply by MONGO
No to splitting.--MONGO 16:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Correct title for page
5. This is not directly related with the current dispute on the article title but is something that should be addressed. Given that the main article is titled September 11, 2001 attacks shouldn't the page title be X theories about September 11, 2001 attacks.

(5) Reply by Pokipsy76
I like Xiutwel's suggestions (below), particularly the second one.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 13:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

(5) Reply by Wayne

 * Similar title format is a good idea as I said in reply to question 2. It can't help but be nuetral. Wayne (talk) 08:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

(5) Reply by Ice Cold Beer
No. In publications and conversations that I have had with people (in real life and on Wikipedia), they are most commonly referred to as 9/11 conspiracy theories. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 20:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

(5) Reply by Chris
Agree with Haemo. //  Chris  (complaints) • (contribs) 14:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you Chris, also, consider my proposed name I put at Haemo's reply, below? And I've done a little research in the archives for your Naming conventions (events) argument. Does that shed a new light on it, either strengthening or weakening your support for your point? &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 21:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No more than I would accept Allegations that Elvis lives for Elvis Sightings. //   Chris  (complaints) • (contribs) 15:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

(5) Reply by Ireneshusband
The only valid justification for creating the conspiracy theories article in the first place would have been to make the main 9/11 article easier to manage. One is a sub-article of the other and it makes sense that the titles should reflect that.

(q5) Reply by Xiutwel

 * 1) suggestion: "Allegations of complicity to the September 11, 2001 attacks" &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 12:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) I don't like "theories" because that doesn't cover the more simple "allegations" and "unanswered questions". ('Allegations' does not cover 'questions' but I see no better compromise yet.) /X 13:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) 2nd suggestion: "Controversies about the September 11, 2001 attacks" &#151; Xiutwel 13:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Generally: I dislike "theories" in the title. The theories are a bonus, they are not the core of the article. I agree the best title would be: XXXX...September 11, 2001 attacks /X 08:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Those who claim that the current title is neutral, should explain this, I think: If one regards the theories as a (social) phenomenon, a meme (Haemo), this is an assessment which in itsself is not neutral: it is a diagnose. A meme is compared by its wikipedia article to a disease: travelling from mind to mind like a virus. Could we call the mainstream account a phenomenon and be neutral about it?  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 06:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The transmission of a meme is virus-like, in that it spreads via person-to-person contact. To quote Richard Dawkins, "a meme should be regarded as a unit of information residing in a brain".  There is nothing "non-neutral" about this characterization.  The term meme encompasses many things.  The "mainstream account" is a meme.  Catholicism is a meme.  The scientific method is a meme.  Rationalism is a meme. Calling them a meme does not imply anything negative or bad about them.  Memetics studies how information is propagated in human societies &mdash; all information. To put it another way, our interactions here are viewed, by memetics, as two incompatible meme-clusters trying to outcompete one another a la natural selection. --Haemo (talk) 06:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I am confused: your three statements seem mutually inconsistent to me; would you clarify on that? When the social phenomenon aspect makes the mainstream view NOT a conspiracy, and the phenomenon is the same meme-property, and the mainstream and the minority views are equally "memes" ... how can that be? I have a connotation with meme, and maybe that's just me, which is: that it is not the analysis of facts that counts, it's the exposure to ideas that makes people change their mind into a viewpoint. And accordingly, "conspiracy theory" has a connotation "only a theory, not based in reality", but the result of dangerous exposure.  And remembering, not long ago you said: "In the sense that, as literally everyone has argued, that "conspiracy theory" has a particular, and distinct academic meaning, no: [the mainstream account is not a conspiracy.]" It is perfectly possible that you have no such connotation, but you seem to be a minority in that respect, being an expert on memetics perhaps. For most of us, it does have POV implications. Perhaps it would help if you would reconsider your position: there must be more than one acceptable title for you? This is very confusing to me. If there really was no difference in this meme-respect between the two viewpoints, we could in principle move the main article to: September 11, 2001 attacks mainstream account. That would then also be "neutral", and that's in fact what the RS call it whenever they mention the words "conspiracy theory". &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 07:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I regret ever using the term "meme" since it appears to have confused you. Here's a better term &mdash; every instance of the term "meme" replace with "unit of information residing in a brain".  The term does not have any implications to me, neutral or otherwise, and I did not mean to confuse you into thinking I was ascribing any to it.  The two are both units of information residing in a brain.  What we call them has nothing to do with this statement, and similarly has nothing to do with calling them memes.  To put it another way, we would call both the "round earth" and "flat earth" views of the world memes (read: units of information residing in a brain).  That does not attach any relationship between them besides being units of information residing in a brain &mdash; all that calling them both memes implies is that they share the property of being units of information residing in a brain, no more, no less. --Haemo (talk) 08:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you! That clears up 2/3 of my confusion. The remainder has to do with the following sentence of yours which is not proper English: The theories themselves refer are a sociological phenomenon, in the same way that any meme is. Can you correct the grammer please, for me? &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 08:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The theories themselves are a sociological phenomenon, in the same way that any meme is. --Haemo (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

(5) Reply by Haemo
The semantic difference between "Conspiracy theories about the September 11, 2001 attacks" and "9/11 conspiracy theories" is basically nil. "9/11 conspiracy theories" is used much more often, and is less of a mouthful. --Haemo (talk) 21:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Would e.g. "Controversies about the September 11, 2001 attacks" be acceptable to you? &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 20:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, for the reasons I've outlined above &mdash; putting this forward, I think you should focus on understanding the nature of people's objections to the change. And that's not to mention that it wildly broadens the scope of the article... --Haemo (talk) 22:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I should probably clarify. When I say "The semantic difference between "Conspiracy theories about the September 11, 2001 attacks" and "9/11 conspiracy theories" is basically nil", I mean that I see them as basically equivalent in meaning. My only problem would be that the former is less common than the latter, and that it's kind of wordy. We don't call United Kingdom the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. --Haemo (talk) 18:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

(5) Reply by Okiefromokla
It wouldn't matter much to me. I don't see a problem with the current title, but I wouldn't be at all opposed to "Conspiracy Theories about the September 11....". It's a bit lenghty, but that would be my only comment against it. Okiefromokla questions? 22:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

(5) Reply by Oneismany
I think "Controversies about the Semptember 11, 2001 attacks," or "Government-critical accounts of the September 11, 2001 attacks," or "Allegations of Government Complicity on 9/11"; or perhaps simply "LIHOP" or "MIHOP," would best summarize the range of theories in a sub-article regarding who is responsible for the attacks. Of course the name will depend on whether or not the Al-Qaeda & Osama theory is included, but that is not mutually exclusive of the government-critical accounts. Note that this might conflict with the existing Responsibility for the Semptember 11, 2001 attacks, so that issue should be resolved ahead of time. I definitely think that no-plane theories, space beams, Barney the Dinosaur, etc. notions should be weighted according to the degree of their acceptance. Oneismany (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

(5) Reply by JzG

 * Having looked at a sizeable proportion of the reliable independent sources I would say that the most usable, likely (as a search term), supportable (per policy and per sources) and succinct title is 9/11 conspiracy theories. This accurately reflects how independent reliable sources identify the subject.  Guy (Help!) 19:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Objection: The fact that the same POV is shared by independent soureces is not enough to allow wikipedia to endorse that POV. Even if a "sizable proportion of reliable independent sources" identify Maradona to be "the best footballer ever" we are still not allowed to write it in wikipedia as a fact.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 20:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, we write that he is identified by reliable sources as the best footballer ever. And in this case we write that these theories are identified by reliable sources as conspiracy theories.  And in fact I don't know of any independent reliable sources that call them anything else, though I may be wrong. Guy (Help!) 23:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * But the article does say that and there is no dispute for it's inclusion in the article. However, we are discussing the page title not content. To reuse the Maradona example, all the RS say he was the best footballer but his article is not named Worlds best footballer even though it fits the same WP guidelines for article naming as 9/11 conspiracy theories. As with this disputed title some would claim Pele is the best so to use that title for Maradona is POV despite the support of most RS. Wayne (talk) 04:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * We're talking about the title of the article here, not European football. Please stay on topic. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't matter anyway, we've had articles in the past on foo considered the best ever, with references. In this case, though, it's pretty much unambiguous, the reliable independent sources identify these only as conspiracy theories, as far as I can tell. Guy (Help!) 09:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If you had familiarised yourself with the topic, then you would know that there are many reliable sources supporting alternative accounts of 9/11. You would also know for instance, that WP:naming conflict states that an article's title should not prejudge its content. You seem to have arrived out of the blue, lacking even a basic grasp of some of the issues and policies concerned. Why on earth are you here? ireneshusband (talk) 11:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have familiarised myself with the topic, in a way that is probably more dispassionate than the average American. There are reliable sources that describe these as conspiracy theories, and sources that describe them as "alternate" theories, but no reliable sources that depart from the view that planes were hijacked by terrorists and crashed into targets causing the damage and destruction observed. While there is some tinkering around the edges of degrees of incompetence in the matter of defense readiness, the reliable sources are, as far as I can tell, unanimous in failing to support any one of the conspiracy theories. Guy (Help!) 21:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Why (GUy) do you say "no" if you after do not contradict what I wrote? I said that we can't state it as a fact and can't endorse the opinion. We can certaqinly express the POV in the attributed form ("X says Y"). In the case of conspiracy theories it is obviously right to say "X identifies Y to be a conspiracy theory" what is wrong is to just name the theories "conspiracy theories" as if it was an indisputable fact.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 13:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There is legitimate dispute about who is the greatest footballer, and competing claimants ("greatest" being an absolute term and one with no properly objective criteria). So we attribute it.  In this case, the reliable independent sources are unanimous: these are conspiracy theories, a definition which is reasonably objective and for which strong consensus exists in the real world.  We know the Truthers don't like the fact that their conspiracy theories are likely to be lumped together with Elvis-alien-abduction and other such nonsense, but it's not our job to fix that. Guy (Help!) 13:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You are suggesting that if sources were unanimous to identify Maradona as "the best footballer ever" then it could be stated as a fact in wikipedia. It is *wrong*: it is not the way wikipedia works. Agreement of 100% sources on an opinion don't makes the opinion a fact for wikipedia.
 * It is false that the definition of "conspiracy theoy" is "reasonably objective": how do you "objectively" check if a given theory is a "conspiracy theory" without consulting a source that express this opinion?
 * It is disputable that for this definition "strong consensus exists in the real world" unless you can provide statistics about this subject supporting your (strong) claim (at least it is not supported by the known 9/11 opinion polls).--Pokipsy76 (talk) 13:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Semantic juggling. Greatest is an absolute term, greatest footballer lacks objective criteria. The combination of an absolute term and a lack of objective criteria creates a problem which simply does not exist int he case of 9/11 conspiracy theories, where the term is categorical not absolute and where membership of the category can be assessed reasonably objectively by reference to independent sources.  A more correct analogy would be if we had an article on great footballers, in which case there would be no dispute that Maradona would be included, but even then the criteria for greatness in a footballer are considerably less objective than the criteria for a given theory being a conspiracy theory. As for the business about polls, Hanlon's razor applies.  Lack of due diligence does not amount to a conspiracy, and for Wikipedia's purposes what would be required are reliable sources identifying the mainstream accounts as a conspiracy theory.  No such sources have yet been provided.  Guy (Help!) 14:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You say that "membership of the category can be assessed reasonably objectively by reference to independent sources" but this cannot be a way to "assess objectively something" otherwise we sould have that if independent sources would say that "Maradona is stronger than Pelè" (i take the relative statement to rule out objections about absoluteness) then we would be allowed to state this as a fact in wikipedia. But this is not how wikipedia works: reference to independent sources cannot be considered a "reasonably objective" criteria to check the truth of a statement.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a theory, the theory posits conspiracy on the part of high officials, the common definition of conspiracy theory is a theory positing conspiracy on the part of high officials, the reliable sources identify the theories as conspiracy theories. Not alternative theories, conspiracy theories.  Truthers hate that, but it's not Wikipedia's job to fix the fact that Truthers are seen as conspiracy theorists.  They need to fix it in the real world first, and then come back and ask us to reflect the new real-world consensus they've created.  Actually, of course, as time goes on it becomes more and more clear that most Truther theories are completely absurd, but hey, that's not our problem either. Guy (Help!) 11:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In this discussion page there was consensus about the difference between "conspiracy theories" in the "academic" meaning (i.e. a sociological and folkloristic phenomenon) and "theory involving conspiracy". Your allegedly "common" definition of "conspiracy theory" as "a theory positing conspiracy on the part of high officials" is completely new to me and new for this discussion. Where does it come from?
 * If the term "conspiracy theory" is to be intended as you say then there would a problem because the term has also the other meaning (a sociological and folkloristic phenomenon) different from yours and more negative than yours. This ambiguity would make the term possibly misleading and derogatory and therefore per WP:NPOV other terminology should be preferred.
 * --Pokipsy76 (talk) 11:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * They are called conspiracy theories because that is exactly what they are, in the common and in the academic meaning, in as much as the two are actually different (something which appears to be asserted mainly in order to try to support the idea of renaming this article - and in this context "consensus" is a Wikipedia term of art meaning "some people who agree with me"). What do the sources call these theories?  They call them conspiracy theories.  Which they clearly are, by every credible definition that's been suggested thus far.  And so we call them the same thing.  Guy (Help!) 16:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * To say - as you are doing - that the academic meaning is true for these claims means to say that these claims belongs to the "sociological folkloristic phenomenon" of conspiracism (this is the academic meaning). I don't see why it should be "clear" (as you say) that all the claims in the article are actually part of this sociological phenomenon. It of course a legitimate opinion but there are clearly people that disagree with this opinion so it is also clear that it cannot be stated as a fact in wikipedia unless you can cite a relevant authority stating unobjectionably that your opinion is actually a fact and people who disagree are wrong (WP:NPOV). Can you cite such a source?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 20:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Listen, mate, we can argue all day, but in the end conspiracy theories is what the reliable independent sources call them, conspiracy theories is how they are generally known, and conspiracy theories is what they are by any rational definition yet proposed. All the semantic juggling in the world is not going to change that. Truthers don't like it? Tough titty.  Fix the real world first, then come to Wikipedia with evidence to show that the real world has changed.  It doesn't work the other way round. Guy (Help!) 21:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

← 14 colons? Xavexgoem (talk) 04:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

(deindent)
 * 1) "conspiracy theories is what the reliable independent sources call them"? This is not relevant unless you rule out the WP:NPOV problem (i.e. you can prove that it is a fact and not an opinion).
 * 2) "conspiracy theories is how they are generally known"? Still not relevant as above.
 * 3) "conspiracy theories is what they are by any rational definition yet proposed"? Well just I devoted the previous reply exactly to show you that there are actually rational and accepted definitions that make disputable whether those are actually "conspiracy theories" (and I was repeating something I just said before being completely ignored). It makes no sense that you reply as if I have said nothing: please reply addressing my objections not repeating things to which I have already made the objections. I understand your *opinion* about wheter they are "conspiracy theory" and in which sense but it is an opinion unless you can prove that those claims are actually just "folklore". Wikipedia cannot endorse opinions and state them as it they were facts.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 11:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I refer the hon. gentleman to my earlier answer. You can argue all night, it won't change the fact that conspiracy theories is what they are, conspiracy theories is what the reliable sources call them, conspiracy theories is how they are usually known, and therefore we have policies (WP:NPOV, WP:V) and guidelines (WP:COMMONNAME, WP:RS, WP:FRINGE) that say conspiracy theories is what we call them.  You can cherry pick little bits from those policies and guidelines all you like, it's not going to change the fact that the real world identifies them as conspiracy theories and the only people who dispute that definition are the Truthers themselves, whose views are a fringe minority and therefore do not get given WP:UNDUE weight especially when your redefinition requires WP:OR. Let me know when you've realised you're not going to persuade me and I will stop repeating myself, but iuntil then that's the answer you're getting. Guy (Help!) 12:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * When you say that "the real world identifies them as conspiracy theories" you should specify with respect to which of the possible meaning of the expression. If the intended meaning is something implying that the theories are absurd or folkloristic then it is just your opinion of what "the real world think", a respectable opinion even if apparently conflicting with the 9/11 opinion polls and which has never been proved to be a fact.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 17:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, not particularly. The real world identifies them as conspiracy theories, enough said. The polls (mostly set up by the Trutjers, so incorporating inherent bias) do not endorse the idea of a conspiracy, they endorse a public perception of laxity or stupidity, which is perfectly understandable given the present incumbent of the White House. But there is no mainstream support for the view that the government orchestrated or colluded in the attacks, and no mainstream support for the idea that the buildings were demolished, and no mainstream support for the idea of a missile being fired at the Pentagon, and no mainstream support for the idea that towers were brought down when the aliens crashed into them by accident while bringing Elvis back.  Guy (Help!) 17:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The statement "The real world identifies them as conspiracy theories" needs a specifications (see above) about wheter you are meaning they are thought to be "flkloristic theories": in this case your statement is a personal opinion, not a fact (or otherwise cite the opinion polls that support it).
 * Some of the questions in the polls are clearly directly connected to the subjects of the page which is actually under discussion (and clearly not connected to "stupidity" or "incompetende"):
 * ''"members of the Bush Administration [...] telling the truth", "Federal officials either participated in the attacks [...] or took no action to stop them"
 * ''"had specific warnings of the 9/11 attacks [...] but chose to ignore those warnings"
 * ''"9/11 Commission concealed or refused to investigate critical evidence that contradicts their official explanation".
 * The result of these polls clearly shows that it is false that people gererally believe the mainstream account to be the truth and these other claims to be "folkloristic"
 * What do you mean by "mainstream support"? Maybe you mean support by the "mainstream media"? Possible, but why should wikipedia endorse the opinion of mainstream media?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 12:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You appear to be engaging in novel synthesis to support WP:TRUTH. No thanks.  Guy (Help!) 13:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm just saying that we cannot assert as a fact something that is just opinion (i.e. the idea that the challenges to the mainstream claim are "folkloristic"). Don't you agree?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 13:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, what you're saying is that you don't like the fact that these theories are credibly identified as conspiracy theories, a term that has negative connotations. But the Truther theories are all complete bollocks and credibly identified as such, and it's not Wikipedia's job to change or obscure that, especially when the purpose for doing so is to avoid hurting the feelings of the deluded. Guy (Help!) 09:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(5) Reply by MONGO
The current title is accurate.--MONGO 16:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Suitable Trout Interlude
Seriously, folks.

Compromises
6. Do you have a compromise idea? If so, please say so here. If not, please say so here, too.

(6) Reply by Wayne
I have no problem with 911 Theories, Alternative 911 Theories etc etc or even the linguistically incorrect Alternative 911 Conspiracy Theories as they all remove the implication supporters are idiots without giving undue weight. The last should be acceptable to the oppose party even though not all alternative theories are conspiracies and at least one alternative theory is almost universally accepted as true. A small section should be added to the page to explain the naming controversy. I accept there is no consensus for a name change but also point out that there is no consensus not to change. Examination indicates a rough 50/50 split every time this comes up which is why something should be done now instead of revisiting the arguement or dismissing it in future. I'd actually be more interested in hearing from editors who do not have a POV bias. ie: those who do not believe the alternative theories but have no problem accepting them as legitimate questions and those who believe in conspiracy theories but accept the official theory is possible. Wayne (talk) 07:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I like Alternative 911 Conspiracy Theories; it's not the best one for me, but counter to my expectation this is a title which does contain the craved "CT" and at the same time removes the pejorativeness by implying that the mainstream account is also a CT, and therefore the term is meant in the neutral sense of theories about conspiracies. I still feel that as long as the article is named "theory", there is a vacancy for an article which discusses no theories but 9/11 alleged anomalies, because contrary to what some editors feel, I believe the anomalies were first, and the theories second, and not the other way around. &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 02:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope. It implies that these conspiracy theories are alternatives to another conspiracy theory, but there are no reliable sources describing the official account as a conspiracy theory (because it isn't one), so that title would be plain wrong. Guy (Help!) 08:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The official theory fits the definition and there are many, many sources (and many are government) that claim 911 was part of a conspiracy to attack America. The title cant be wrong as CT's are alternatives to "another theory". Wayne (talk) 11:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * See above. Cite reliable sources which describe the official story as a conspiracy theory. There is a difference between a conspiracy and a conspiracy theory. The gunpowder plot was a conspiracy, but not a conspiracy theory. Guy (Help!) 12:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

(6) Reply by Haemo
No. If I had, I would have proposed it. --Haemo (talk) 04:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So where should I go from here? Xavexgoem (talk) 04:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't know. --Haemo (talk) 04:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

(6) Reply by Ice Cold Beer
Usually, to reach a compromise, we must first find common ground. When I first saw Xiutwel's question on the talk page (What do we agree on?), the first thought that entered my mind was: nothing. I thought a bit harder about it, and I couldn't think of anything on which both sides agree. So, I think it logically follows that there probably will not be a compromise.

My personal view is that 9/11 conspiracy theories is the best title, and I would be shocked if someone came up with a title that is better than the current one. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

(6) Reply by Okiefromokla
Well, it's obvious that there is no consensus for this move. That was the result of this discussion on Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories, as well. I saw Xiutwel's comment on the talk page, and as much as I want to believe there is common ground, this seems to be an either/or, all or nothing situation: change the title or don't change it. That is, unless someone does come up with a suitable compromise, which I doubt exists. From my take on things, I just don't know if there is a reason strong enough to convince me that the common name convention should be broken. Xavexgoem, I've never been involved in a mediation cabal discussion before, but would it be appropriate for you to take some stance based on all of these arguments? I think all or most of us have been involved in 9/11 pages and/or the previous discussion of this name change, so a conclusion drawn by a neutral party uninvolved in the long history of this debate may be helpful. Perhaps if it is clear that your conclusion would not be a closure of the debate, but a reference point for editors? Or, to be a little less definitive, you could summarize a critique of the arguments by both sides. At this point, which side's argument do you feel is stronger? Okiefromokla questions? 05:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I hesitate to answer this, because although I feel both sides have strong arguments, I don't want my opinion to be misconstrued as taking sides; very often, guidelines in the project space are viewed as having more weight than others. But I'll bite :-)
 * 1. The article needs a serious copy-edit (this I consider more important than the name); I don't have suggestions atm, but it's outside my pervue anyhow.
 * 2. The core of the discussion appears to be between WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOV. I want to focus on NPOV first. They say that guidelines and policies reflect the spirit of the community, and not the letter of the policy. What I want to know is, does the spirit reflect on the wishes of the readers and the editors, or does it reflect on the content? I hope this makes sense. What I want is for both parties to remain somewhat content with whatever outcome.
 * COMMONNAME applies as a general guideline, but many editors (and I reckon many readers) feel that "conspiracy theory" is simply too pejorative. I don't know how to resolve this, as arguments have come up that "conspiracy theory" is indeed an academic term, and oft-cited at that. On the other hand, and this has been bugging me (correct me if I'm wrong), but "conspiracy theory" in the academic implies (iirc) a sociological phenomenon, yet the content of the article is specifics about the theories. "Conspiracy" is implied in many of them, but not all of them. So I think the article is kinda lumped together poorly. Maybe that's just me.
 * 3. There is only one thing that really gets to me: If the "official story" is not a conspiracy theory, and is viewed as demonstratible fact, why can't the article just be named "9/11 Theories"? It isn't as concise, granted, but it appears that appending "conspiracy" anywhere in the title poisons the article for the rather broad base of Truthers. And for their sake, and to reduce wikidrama, I see no problem with "allegations of complicity concerning 9/11" (etc). But the bar has been set too high for this to happen, methinks.
 * 4...n:So there are a few compromises, at least in my mind: "Allegations of Complicity", "9/11 Theories", etc. I think the unwieldiness of the title is irrelevant; and people who type in 9/11 conspiracy theories can simply meet a redirect. I see no reason why this can't satisfy those who wish the title stayed the same, when the entire article is dedicated to debunking each and every theory. I may be wrong, but I think it's a good compromise.
 * I sense more drama that needs to be resolved, as well. I'm fairly certain that between LIHOPs and MIHOPs there is a bitter divide; and were I a theorist myself (I'm at a loss as to what terms to use, so I apologize in advance), I would not want an idea I hold fairly close (and I find this understandable) to be lumped with "allegations of Jewish involvement", as this can render the entire set of theories as anti-semitic. Sure, the Truther movement involves many different people with many different opinions, but so does any religious faith, any political movement, etc. (Rambling a bit, now)
 * I think another acceptable option, although rather unprecedented, is a WP self reference to clear up just some of the air, and make explicit statements as to the conflicting views on the term "conspiracy theory" in a concise manner. I think WP:WIARM (and WP:COMMON by extension) applies here, too. It's an out-of-the-box thought, but something to consider.
 * Finally, no one has a stronger argument. This is a political matter, and as we all know: the personal is the political. It's not a fight of reason vs. emotion, either: there are concise and valid arguments made by both sides. I weigh it 50/50.
 * My mind is a little tired, atm, so I apologize if the prose ain't too hot. Feel free to engage on each suggestion... Xavexgoem (talk) 06:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, if this is construed as taking sides, I will remove this and immediately apologize. It is not my wish. At all.


 * I weakly object to the claim that this is a political matter. I opposed a name change in previous RFC's but was forced to change my mind after reading the reasons most gave for opposing. It became clear the title being pejoritive was almost the only reason given for not changing. It was only after this was brought up as a reason for changing that many editors denied they meant it that way and the WP policies arguement became popular. I feel the perception of the titles nuetrality should be the main focus. Wayne (talk) 07:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I meant generally. The bit above is a bit of a ramble. I hope it's at least somewhat comprehensible ;) Xavexgoem (talk) 08:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

(6) Reply by JzG
No compromise is necessary or desirable. This is the fallacy of the false middle, the assertion that neutrality must necessarily lie around the midpoint between two opposing views. In this case, though, we are being asked to compromise between WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS on one side, and the fact that a fringe minority regard these as legitimate alternate theories on the other. Sorry, no. Wikipedia does not compromise between NPOV and fringe minorities. Guy (Help!) 10:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Then the purpose of this mediation, and your participation in it is...? Xavexgoem (talk) 11:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC) ← wiki stress.
 * No, it's a reaosnable question, and it's addressed by my first statement. Unless the purpose of this mediation is to patiently explain to people why the NPOV title verifiably supported by reliable sources is not going to change, then it is a waste of time and effort.  I am not big on giving people false hope, and that's what this case seems largely to be about. Guy (Help!) 12:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You make much of the "fringe minority". Several RS (most notably Time magazine) have stated this minority is mainstream not fringe. While the more extreme theories have less than 10% support from the public the majority of theories have 35%+ and one particular conspiracy theory is supported by 83% of the public. Hardly fringe. Wayne (talk) 17:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, that's just more cherry-picking. Widespread belief in some degree of incompetence or stupidity does not equate to mainstream support for anything other than the official view, that the attacks were conducted by terrorists, using aircraft, and these accounted for all the damage observed. We discuss the areas of incompetence etc. at the responsibility article.  That does not do anything to undermine the fact that the conspiracy theories are just exactly that: conspiracy theories. Guy (Help!) 23:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Any RS that supports truthers is "cherry picking"??????????? Why bring up government "incompetence or stupidity"? That is a given and not disputed by anyone. The 83% is support for the theory that the government is lying about 911 which is the foundation of all CT's. Wayne (talk) 11:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not what I said. What I said was, you are cherry-picking sources t support what appears to be a Truther angenda.  Truthers may indeed have set up some surveys showing that significant numbers of people believe that the stand-down of air cover was wrong, but it would require original research to extend that to an assertion of significant support for anything other than terrorists and planes as the explanation for the observed destruction. Reliable sources identify the Truther theories as conpsiracy theories, and do not identify the official explanation as such, so every proposed "solution" here is in fact a solution to a problem that does not exist. Guy (Help!) 12:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

(6) Reply by Xiutwel

 * The term "conspiracy theory" is the part which I disagree with. I am open to almost any other title, so in a sense that is a compromise. However, a lot of editors insist on having the term I dislike, and it is logically impossible to compromise between those two wishes. /X


 * remark: we might take a look at the Reincarnation article, which discusses a concept which is "crackpot" to a lot of people, but is still treated with respect. &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not relevant. Reincarnation is the correct common name, 9/11 conspiracy theories is the correct common name. We treat the theories with a good deal more respect than they deserve. Guy (Help!) 11:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "they deserve" ... I have the impression you are looking at the content now, and engaging in the debate in stead of descibing it. (?) I was not referring to the title so much, as the entire article, in line with my suggestion to park the name issue until we agree on the level of respect. &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 13:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really, it's just that we treat them a good deal more neutrally than most sources which discuss them. Most sources either ignore them as obvious twaddle, or lambast them. Guy (Help!) 15:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we should go deeper, hold the name issue for a while, and examine our general approach to 9/11 related wikipedia pages more broadly. On the (locked-down) main 9/11 page there is now a discussion ongoing trying to find some consensus on representing the alleged significant minority view in that article. Before we can decide on a proper name for this article, should we not first decide whether the CT's are worthy of neutral treatment? &mdash; or that they fall into the Flat Earth theories catagory?If we do not agree on that first, discussion on the correct name for this article seems not to converge into consensus...! Some questions, then: /Xi
 * -when we define views that include questioning the mainstream account to a large extent as "view B" /Xi


 * 1) does view B exist? /Xi
 * 2) is view B a viewpoint (correct or incorrect) or just a social phenomenon? /Xi
 * 3) even if view B is wrong, can it be taken seriously enough to write about respectfully? /Xi
 * 4) does view B have (enough) prominent adherents? /Xi &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 20:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) [add your questions]