Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories/Archive 24

This is an archive of past discussions about 9. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

→

"Hijackers" section

From the "Hijackers" section:

During the initial confusion surrounding the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the BBC published the names and identities of some of the hijackers.

So what? The rest of the section continues as though this was a problem. I assume there must have been some error in this initial list, but the section needs to specify what exactly was the error, or the rest of the section makes no sense. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the initial list contained errors. It should probably be changed to say:

"During the initial confusion surrounding the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the BBC published the names and identities of what they believed to be some of the hijackers."

We can add an additional sentence that says something like, "Some of the people named as hijackers were later discovered to be alive, a fact that was seized upon by 9/11 conspiracy theorists as proof that the hijackings were faked". Although we would need a source for this second sentence.

Some of the people named as hijackers were later discovered to be alive, this was used as evidence by 9/11 conspiracy theorists to support their claim that the hijackings were faked. "Seized" seems a bit POV. It hints that 9/11 conspiracy theorists fit evidence to their theories. We rightfully print accusations that they do this, but we can't use language that hints that they do this unless it is verifiable. Edkollin (talk) 16:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm partially banned from making changes to the article. I forget what my restrictions are. Can someone else make the edit? Again, we need a source for the second sentence.

Thanks for your input, Comet Tuttle. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this incident is what this article from Der Spiegel is talking about. You're not banned from making changes to the article, you're only banned from reverting Cs32en. (And Cs32en is banned from reverting you.) Hut 8.5 10:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

"The majority of civil engineers state..."

I know this statement is veriable, but is the opposite also verfiable? There are just under 1,000 architects and civil engineers on ae911truth.org who don't think the fire-driven collapse is true, and Richard Gage says around 90% of the engineers he shows his evidence to sign up to 9/11 truth. How many civil engineers have explicitly alligned with the official story? Because I'm having doubts that it exceeds 1,000. Are there any reliable sources on this matter? Autonova (talk) 19:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Article on CD hypothesis published in German mainstream journal "Focus Money"

Focus Money, a mainstream German weekly journal, has published an article about the controlled demolition hypothesis. It title is "We don't believe you!". The article reports on the major arguments put forward by proponents of the hypothesis. It asks "What distinguishes these concerned citizens from those who believe that everyone who doesn't accept the official version would be a crazy conspiracy theorist?" and comments "NIST [...] has not taken into account the possibility of a controlled demolition. The strange justification: Controlled demolitions usually start from the bottom." It also reports about the study of Steven Jones and Niels Harrit, who claim to have found nano-thermite in the debris of the World Trade Center. A similar article (written by a different journalist) has appeared in a German TV journal and in a German science magazine.

Cs32en 19:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Why do you say it was "focus money" when you link to "911video.de," which is not a reliable source. Hipocrite (talk) 19:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I provided the link to www.911video.de because Focus Money is not an online publication, but a print journal. And I don't think the website is faking the article, as many people in Germany would be able to check the information at the newsstand. Cs32en 21:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Contents of Focus Money, 2/2010, on the website of Focus magazine Cs32en 21:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Antisemitism

can someone put the info box onto the jewish and israeli involvement? if jews havent suffered enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samanthacohen (talk • contribs) 09:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

NO - you cannot tag something as antisemitism simply because it is critical of Israel or Jews. Logicman1966 (talk) 12:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You know that conspiracy theories about Jews and Israel are classic antisemitism, right? 78.49.101.89 (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

We may split that section into a section "Israeli involvement" and another section on "Jewish conspiracy" (possibly both preceded by "Allegations of..."). Then, the section about allegations of a "Jewish conspiracy" may contain suitable links to articles on antisemitism. The number of such links or the size of any template must be proportionate to the due weight of these allegations. Cs32en Talk to me 17:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

So, anything someone writes about the Jews or Israel is automatically Antisemetic?Leviathanlover (talk) 21:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Ehm, obviously not, and that was not stated here, anyway. 134.106.199.8 (talk) 14:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

These parts have citations...

The following two statements are labeled as "citation needed", however the references 4 and 78 which are listed as the end of that paragraph include this information. If need be I suppose they could be listed directly after each sentence, I suppose the original author was just referencing the entire paragraph at once.

"Airplane debris including Flight 77's black boxes, the nose cone, landing gear, an airplane tire, the fuselage, an intact cockpit seat, and the tail number of the airplane were recovered at the crash site.[citation needed] The remains of passengers and crew from Flight 77 were found at the Pentagon crash site and their identities confirmed by DNA analysis.[citation needed]"

We need to eather mention 4 and 78 again in place of the citation needed, or simply remove them. BluBerries! (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Title and Content

This article is very poor in every way I don't know where to begin. It should be rewritten entirely. It contains bias, contempt and seems devoid of relevant fact pertaining to the questioners. It's too problematic all throughout to even bother with suggestions. Venus III (talk) 15:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

What relevant facts are missing? It may contain contempt, but that's because the reliable sources do. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The tough thing about finding facts about the “questioners” is that they don’t get much attention from the media or academia. We can use their own press releases, websites, etc. for some kinds of information (e.g. name, headquarters, mission statement) but not necessarily others (e.g. size, accomplishments). — NRen2k5^(TALK), 19:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Where Wikipedia fails

This article is so POV and so utterly non-encyclopedic that it makes me shudder. It doesn't matter how much so-called conspiracy theorists are ridiculed in mass culture; their ideas MUST be presented accurately and non-judgmentally here. Any hint that these theories shouldn't be taken seriously is a contradiction of what Wikipedia claims it stands for. Frankly, some of the counter-evidence to the "generally-accepted" version of events should be placed directly in the main 9/11 article. These are only "silly conspiracy theories" if you approach them with that mindset. Notice that I'm not taking positions on whether the theories are right or not, only that they are far more thought-provoking than they are given credit for in this article.67.193.231.109 (talk) 07:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

This article take the conspiracy theories seriously and at face value, and does not ridicule them one bit, nor call them silly. If you have any specific complaints, bring them up, but a side swipe claiming that the article in general is bad is not constructive. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely, however many editors argue that the general policy of Wikipedia puts verifiability ahead of raw truth, which is correct. As it is difficult to find a reliable source which is supportive of the 9/11 questions, the article must present such questions speculatively. If I had it my way I would upload the video of WTC7 collapsing, thermal images of molten metal under the three buildings, and facts such as Dick Cheney inexplicably being appointed pentagon emergency manager for only like 3 months around 9/11 etc etc. All of which are facts, but hard to present reliably. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.199.179 (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not see why it would be a problem to present these facts reliably with a NPOV. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The question would need to be asked: A, what purpose does the WTC7 video serve. What are you trying to achieve by posting it? Are you attempting to manufacture a point of view? B, same for thermal imaging. I'm not sure how the Dick Cheney thing would be hard to cite. Or is our anon friend suggesting that there are no reliable sources for this information, in which case it would fail verifiability.--Koncorde (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, for *this* article you would need to explain what conspiracy theory you are trying to clarify with these things, because we can't just have any animation/video/images that people feel like sticking in here. It would need to be made clear in what way it improves the article, yes. But that has nothing to do with POV/NPOV. There are no problems in presenting facts in a NPOV matter. I get the feeling that what you mean with "facts" are the so called "unanswered questions", and they are hard to present in an NPOV way, yes, mostly because they are answered, so just calling them unanswered is counter-factual and POV from the start. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

(out) The article must present the story as it is seen in mainstream sources, viz., the theory is incorrect. When CNN, Fox News and MSNBC accept these theories then the article should too. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

There's too much use of words like 'myth' thus creating a prejudice for the reader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.41.30 (talk) 08:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

A quick check shows that myth is being used when the source used it. Edkollin (talk) 15:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Enron

No mention of Enron! Isn't that one of the top side-goals with the main purpose of false flag! —Preceding unsigned comment added by VinnieCool (talk • contribs) 08:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Globalresearch's media research.

The currently contested text about changing media attitudes originates here: [1]

Global Research claimes to be an organisation that researches globalisation, but yet all the web site contains are articles on intermational issues which a string slant towards the conspiratorial and sensational. Any form of research is notably lacking, also in the article in question.

The article claims that the media attitude has changed, but yet the only evidence that the attitude before April 9 2009 they have are two quotes, of which only one is actually negative. If you are to show that the media attitudes have changed, you have to make an overview of mentions of 9/11 conspiracy theories in several major media outlets over the long term, and study them. Nothing like that is done. Hence, the conclusion that is made can not be made from the source material. You can not claim that the attitude has changed, without looking at the state before the alleged change. And if you are to claim that the attitude before April 2009 was negative, you should probably come up with better evidence than one neutral and one negative quote about the conspiracy theories.

All evidence given after April 2009 is also interpreted as positive, even when there really is nothing to interpret is like that. There is also no effort to take a look at the attitudes in general, instead only the evidence that supports the conclusion is presented.

This in itself is enough reason to ignore this source. But it gets worse. This is the central part from the summary:

Eight countries – Britain, Canada, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway and Russia – have allowed their publicly-owned broadcasting stations to air the full spectrum of evidence challenging the truth of the official account of 9/11. This more open approach taken in the international media – I could also have included the Japanese media – might be a sign that worldwide public and corporate media organizations are positioning themselves, and preparing their audiences, for a possible revelation of the truth of the claim that forces within the US government were complicit in the attacks – a revelation that would call into question the publicly given rationale for the military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

This implies that other countries forbid the information to be changed, and also that these eight countries *did* forbid it, but has changed this policy and now allows the information. This is complete nonsense of course. All of the above countries have press freedom and more or less independent public service broadcasting that can send whatever they want without any sort of censorship. The article also presumes the conspiracies to be correct, and assumes that the apparent lack of censorship is in fact proof of earlier censorship, and an indication that the conspiracy soon will be public. This assumes that not only the US government is involved, but that the governments of most of the world is involved, or at least these eight countries, as they now according to the article is a part of a synchronized effort to start leaking info and preparing the public.

Note that this position is notably different from Kevin Howley's conclusion, which is that "international news workers [...] have shifted the terms of the debate away from conspiracy theory to a legitimate scientific debate worthy of public scrutiny." The article claims nothing like this. The articles conclusion is in fact not claim that the medias attitudes have changed, but the state has stopped censoring parts of the conspiracists information, in an effort to prepare the public for the truth. So the source does not support the quote that was used in the Wikipedia article.

The "research" is obviously a part of the Truth Movement, so it's not WP:RS, it makes no actual effort to research the topic, so it's again not WP:RS, it assumes the conclusion, so it's not WP:RS, it's not published in a respectable journal or peer-reviewed magazine, which it should be when it claims to be research, so it's not WP:RS. And worst of all, it doesn't support neither it's own, nor Howley's conclusions.

In summary, there is absolutely no support for the statement that media attitudes have changed. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It may just be me, but your reference link at the beginning is routing to a page that cannot be displayed... could also be the website is temporarily down, or a busted link. Mojokabobo (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not you. Seems their site is down. I guess they couldn't take the deluge of what...tens of wikipedia editors? :-) Googles cache has it: [2] --OpenFuture (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You are correct it is not fact and I reworded it to note that it is informed opinion. It can be further reworded if that is still not clear. We have despite the strict biography of living persons regulations allowed up until this point statements ascribing all types of psychological motivations to conspiracy theorists that have no sources backing up those claims. We have done this because we deem the source making these claims reputable. In Wikipedia academic credentials in the subject being discussed is looked upon more favorably then mainstream media sources. Wikipedia is never supposed to be regarded as a reliable source so that Wikipedia does not have an article on a source should be meaningless. Since this section is long it might be worth getting a consensus for a clause that claims by reliable sources must be backed up by other reliable sources. That could bring up original research issues but I would be open to it for the sake of consistency. But that at this point is hypothetical. At this point deleting a claim by a primary source deemed by Wikipedia guidelines as more reliable whist leaving in unsourced claims by less reliable primary sources is cherry picking. Edkollin (talk) 19:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not informed opinion, it's utter nonsense, that claims to be research. I do not see any way to reword this that doesn't imply that it is in some way has a base in reality, as it pretends to be research. It's like if we allowed a medium talking to the attackers as a source for "informed opinion" on 9/11. It just doesn't work. If the original article was an opinion piece, we could skip Kevin Howley and just say that it's the opinion of Woodsworth, but Woodsworth presents it not as opinion but as research. And Howley refers to it as a "study" which is overly nice as well.

There is no problems with having opinions in the article, and there is no problem in having research, but what when you have utter nonsense claiming to be research? How on earth can we include that in the article and not violate NPOV and NOR?

And to clarify about your other comments: The problem is not that Wikipedia doesn't have an article on the source. The problem is that the source pretends to be research, when it in fact is complete fantasy, and does not support the text in question. The statement was that media attitudes have changed. Nothing in either Howleys or Woodsworths articles support that statement. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

This source is absolutely unreliable, and makes what appears to be a non-notable argument. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 20:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

So from now on we make decisions on reliability of sources, and the factual nature of what they are saying. The credentials or the expertise of the primary source be dammed. I used to consider that type of thing original research on my part but I guess that was incorrect. Got it now. Edkollin (talk) 21:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Please note that the primary source here is Elizabeth Woodworths article on globalresearch.ca. Elizabeth Woodworth has absolutely no credentials or expertise in this topic, she is a retired librarian. Yes, reliability of sources is important. Verifiability as well, NPOV also, and the expertise and credentials of the original source as well. And all of these speaks volumes against the inclusion of any statement based in any way on this source. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Then we are possibly talking apples and oranges

"According to Kevin Howley an associate professor of media studies at DePauw University a report released by Global Research an organization that Howley describes as a Canadian-based independent research organization found that the international media is changing its narrative when reporting on 9/11 conspiracy theories. The Global Research report found that since the April 2009 publication of a study in the Open Chemical Physics Journal that claims to have found traces of nano thermite in debris from the World Trade Center the international media has changed how it frames stories from emphasizing conspiracy theories to emphasizing the veracity of the 9/11 conspiracy claims. According to Howley the United States media continues to have an "ostrich routine" towered the subject.^[1]^[2]".

In my original text Global Research was the primary source. In the reworded text above Mr. Howley is the primary source as it is rewritten to hopefully to note this is Mr. Howley's opinion. The question in my view is because we find his judgment to use Global Research as his source so onerous that despite his credentials in the field he is opining on we judge him unreliable. Edkollin (talk) 23:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

But he isn't the primary source, he just refers to Woodsworth: According to a new study published by Global Research, a Canadian-based independent research organization, news reports that bring up troubling questions about the official story surrounding the events of Sept. 11, 2001, are gaining traction in the international press. He says that it is a "report surveys international press coverage of the 911 Truth movement during 2009" which simply is not true. He does not present it as opinion, his or anyone elses, but as factual research. The primary source is Woodsworth, nobody else. It claims to be scientific research, and must be dealt with as if it was. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

He never says "this is my opinion" but when he writes it as a column and not as a peer reviewed paper and says in so many ways isn't it great the media is changing, that is an opinion piece. The "paper" does have "sourcing" unlike claims in the media section that conspiracy theorists find some sort of comfort in their theories. Those claims/opinions/facts have been siting there for months or even years and for the most part they never have been challenged (and in my opinion generally they shouldn't be). Edkollin (talk) 06:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The comment on comfort is presented in The Time as opinion by a scholar with credentials and expertise on the subject. This is not the case for the article in the Bloomington Alternative. If I'm unclear or hard to understand above, then please tell me. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes that is one the reasons I added the Time material back in 2006. The expert is presented as lecturer at a University who has done studies in the subject he was commenting on. Mr.Howley is an associate professor in the subject he is commenting on. I graduated college decades ago so you can correct me if I'm wrong but I still believe associate professor is a higher credential then lecturer. The studies the lecturer conducted were not produced but he is given benefit of the doubt correctly due to his credentials. We accept as article worthy Charlie Brooker who is a multimedia personality opinion of the psychology of 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Mr. Howley said specifically where he got his information but dispute his credentials he is not given the benefit of the doubt because his choice of a source is judged as ridiculous by editors who may or may not have credentials. Unless his credentials have been challenged or his methods have been subjects of controversy I see no reason to question his choice. If you feel strongly enough that his methods are garbage I would suggest you take appropriate action of your choice. Unless it is a tabloid or somebody's Facebook page or the publication has been seriously challenged etc I do not see the importance of where Mr. Howley's commentary was published. Just because a paper is alternative or has an agenda does not make it automatically unreliable. Edkollin (talk) 17:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You just repeat your position even though I have already answered all your points above, and explained why they are not valid. I repeat:

Howley is not the primary source. He is irrelevant. So is the Bloomington Alternative. By even mentioning them in your arguments, you invalidate your own argument by showing that you have not understood the situation.
The Times quote is a journalist quoting a credited expert on a topic on which the credited expert has done research. The Bloomington Alternative text is a credited expert referring to a non-research paper by a non-credited non-expert on a topic on which no one has made any research whatsoever. There are *no* parallels. None. The Times quote is irrelevant.

Is this still unclear? --OpenFuture (talk) 17:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

So we agree that the Time Magazine material is article worthy and the Bloomington Alternative is irrelevant (I did misunderstand that). Where we disagree is that I place a higher value on Howley's judgment of the worthiness of the Global Research material then I do my own or other Wikipedia editors judgment on that issue. Is that clear? Edkollin (talk) 18:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we agree on the Time Magazine material. Howley's opinion isn't relevant as it isn't an opinion piece. This is presented as research and must be treated as research. And as research is fails exactly all forms of WP:RELIABILITY imaginable. See above. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Afghanistan's vast oil resources

From TFA lead: The commonly claimed motives are to justify the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, leading to subsequent US control of their vast oil resources.
The sentence references a source which, however, does not actually source the claim -- no mention is made of Afghanistan, 9/11, nor conspiracy theorists.
Are there sources for the claim? It would be particularly educational to see a source where conspiracy theorists pontificate on the vast oil resources of Afghanistan. 88.112.56.9 (talk) 19:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Good catch - I've removed the source, as it didn't directly mention any of the points in the sentence, and added a citation needed tag. I was going to rewrite the sentence a little, but I thought some of the editors that have been working on this page for a longer time might want to have a go. ClovisPt (talk) 00:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this article neutral?

I believe this article is making out each of the conspiracy theories to be 'stupid'. None of the theories are explained in detail and many points are left out. Each theory is described in a way to make readers automatically deny the theory. I believe that no sides should be taken when writing this article, and it is clear to me that a side has been taken. It seems that this article has been written by someone who is clearly against these theories.59.100.38.244 (talk) 09:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Not one editor, but as I noted in the snowball section above a combination of a substantial majority of the long time editors here and the mainstream media sources deemed "reliable" are highly critical to contemptuous of these theories. Wikipedia for a Web 2.0 invention has sure has not gotten a grip on how to deal with it. Blogs ,Websites etc where the majority of the 9/11 truth movement resides range from pure garbage to miles ahead of the traditional media. Because it is very difficult to create a policy to figure out the garbage from the genius Wikipedia does not deal with it at all. Wikipedia in general considers websites blogs etc unreliable sources. All of that being said it would be unreadable to go into detail about every theory. Links are given for more detail and the prominent 9/11 Truth Websites are listed in the external links section and sub-articles have been written that do go into more detail. Some improvements have been made. I particularly like the material in the history section that describes how 9/11 conspiracy theories are different then the usual conspiracy theories. With the exception of the book used as a source I have not seen that noted elsewhere in traditional sourcing.

So do you have any particular language you find that is not neutral? Edkollin (talk) 16:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Well for example in the World Trade Center colapse section the article states,

"The reasoning behind this explained that if the US Government had planted explosives in the building but made it look like terrorists had done the damage, it would have given them a perfect excuse to go to war in Iraq"

I believe this language is indirectly persuading readers to 'sneer' at this theory, one that is most talked about and a well known 9/11 conspiracy theory. Another point i would like to add is the relevance of the theories 'No plane theories' and 'Reptilian shape shifting aliens'. I believe this also contributes to influencing readers to think that all the 9/11 conspiracy theories are created by nut cases. 59.100.95.201 (talk) 00:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not see the non neutrality of the "excuse" language. That is a accurate description of the alleged Bush administration motivation given by not only 9/11 truthers but those who point out that Bush "lied" or exaggerated the WMD threat.

The other two cases it is noted that these theories are not uniformly held by many 9/11 conspiracy theorists. "No plane" theories do have a considerable following and is espoused by a former Reagan administration official so it is notable. The same can not be said in my view about the "Reptilian shape shifting aliens". This seems to be a theory being promoted by one person. Since its inclusion in the article it has been brought up by the mainstream media to discredit 9/11 theorists. This is type of thing editors are always warned to be careful about. Edkollin (talk) 11:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

In the first part of this document it is cited that "the majority of civil engineers agree that high speed collision along with subsequent fires were the cause of the collapse of the towers" This is an utter lie, its is factually innacurate and by the laws of physics is impossible, it is the only case in engineering history that a steel structure has collapsed due to fire at near free-fall speeds. The fact this is cited at the beginning of the main part of the article clearly shows it was written by a LIAR, a deniar and a man who's writings henceforth should be discredited. Patheticly ridiculous journalism, the man is a monkey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pictavian (talk • contribs) 10:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

59.100.95.201 you seem to complain that some of the conspiracy theories are not taken seriously enough on this page, yet you question the relevance of "Reptilian shape shifting aliens". If you are interested in having all these different viewpoints see the light of day, why are you trying to stifle some? I'm a firm believer in these shape shifting aliens and you should be too.70.144.162.248 (talk) 17:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I also discredit the neutrality of the article. I am a believer in the 9/11 conspiracy theories and after reading this article was seriously doubting what I believe. The article makes it seem like everything we know about 9/11 is already set in stone. Everything that happened that day does not have a reasonable explaination and this article makes it seem like this is some open-shut case. Leviathanlover (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

In regard "the majority of civil engineers agree that high speed collision along with subsequent fires were the cause of the collapse of the towers" — it's somewhat incomplete. It should read "all but a few (competent) civil engineers agree ...." — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it's odd that, in an article about 9/11 conspiracy theories, so much of the text is refutations of those theories. If we're going to do it that way, why have two articles about 9/11? Just have one article that has point and counter-point. If we are going to have two articles, this one should be about the conspiracy theories, not about the correctness of the government's version of events. Also, there seems to be a strong reluctance on the part of some editors to allow inclusion of material based on the few news articles that do try to present challenges to the government's findings. Just check out the "Absolute Bias" and "Removal of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth petition info from WTC collapse section" below. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This is an article about the conspiracy theories. Every article on Wikipedia must be NPOV. Therefore both the conspiracy theories and it's debunking must be represented on this article, which they are. What do you find odd about articles being NPOV? There is absolutely no reluctance whatsoever to include material that presents challenges to the governments findings. Your addition in the discussions below do not present any such challenge whatsoever. It has been explained to you why those additions is not appropriate. Your attempt to spread the discussion into other section headers here is WP:DISRUPTION. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it's just that the strange reluctance to included referenced material, and the large amount of material that is not about the conspiracy theories themselves, but refutations of those theories, has led me to post in this section that I, too, feel this article is not NPOV. You are assuming bad faith on my part WP:Good faith. Also, can you point out to me conspiracy theory material in the 9/11 attacks article? It's all restricted to one section called "Conspiracy theories". So in this article, how about one section called "Rebuttals of conspiracy theories" and drop the point by point refutations? Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you understand that material isn't automatically valid just because it has a reference? It must also be supported by the reference, relevant for the article, not end up breaking the articles WP:NPOV, not give WP:UNDUE weight, and from a WP:RS? Just having a reference is not enough. If it was then I could add material on how cute my cat is, sourced from an article on my blog. I'm sure you don't want that. ;) If you think the 9/11 attacks article is POV, take that up there. This page is about this article, not other articles. You have no pointed out how this article is biased in any way. This heading is about bias, nothing else. If you don't understand Wikipedia policies, ask for help somewhere. Please stop disrupting. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

You are consistently misrepresenting my statements and making all kinds of accusations. I guess the administrators just allow this kind of behavior to continue and continue, so you feel free to be as obnoxious and disruptive as you please, and delete the contributions of other editors according to your own illogical whims. The material that is being removed from this article is not only referenced, but highly relevant. Please see the discussions below at "Absolute Bias" and "CBS on opinions of scientists (Absolute Bias discussion continues here)" and "Removal of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth petition info from WTC collapse section". Ghostofnemo (talk) 09:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

CBS on opinions of scientists (Absolute Bias discussion continues here)

The sentence

"A tiny minority of scientists, most not experts in relevent fields, believe the government's investigation was inadequate, and maintain that questioning widely held assumptions has been part of the job of scholars for centuries."

misrepresents the CBS source, which specifically refers to Scholars for 9/11 Truth, not to scientists believing the government's investigation was inadequate. I suggest to delete the sentence and work out a phrase that follows the source closely. Cs32en Talk to me 15:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

That quote follows the source very closely. The source states "Members of the group don't consider themselves extremists. They simply believe the government's investigation was inadequate, and maintain that questioning widely held assumptions has been part of the job of scholars for centuries." The "group" referred to is "a recently formed group called Scholars for 9/11 Truth," which "[is] a tiny minority of the 1 million part- and full-time faculty nationwide ... Most aren't experts in relevant fields." Hipocrite (talk) 15:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that looks like synthesis to me. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't my idea to include it. It was my idea to weight it appropriately. It initially said "other sacientists believe..." which was a shocking violation of UNUDE. Hipocrite (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Definite SYN. The group is not equivalent to scientists, they are not the only scientists to oppose the investigation, we don't know how many of them are experts in relevant fields, etc. The source simply does not support that quote.

This whole debate is getting really stupid. Honestly. The article is NOT POV as it stands, and adding WP:SYN based on a quote from somebody in a small group who is obviously not telling the truth makes no sense and improves nothing. Stop this idiotic disruption. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The stem of this argument is the fact that the source used to state that mainstream scientists refuse to debate the issue is one side of the issue. The counterbalance to that argument is the fact that there is a minority of scientists who not only take up the debate, but have also put their careers and credibility on the line to state that they believe there needs to be a renewed investigation into the events that occurred. Admittedly, said scientists are in the minority, and being as it is this is a minority viewpoint article. It is not undue to include the statement, or even a link to Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, to counter balance the statement made about assenting scientists so as to note the position of the dissenting scientists, which would aide in neutrality.Mojokabobo (talk) 19:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This argument has been answered multiple times above. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes it has been. I have refined my thesis so that it is quite clear. Quite in fact, let's now refute the idea that including the counterbalance is synthesis. You see, the comment about the assenting mainstream scientists who refuse to debate the theory, is being used as is without the counterbalance from it's source citation denoting the dissenting scientists position to synthesize the argument that this 'conspiracy theory' is generally dismissed. Without the counterbalance to the statement, neutrality is being violated by cherry picking comments from a source to synthesize a desired idea, which is to instill in the mind of the reader that scientists do not take this theory seriously. That is a blatant violation of neutrality, synthesis, and it is not undue to include the statement. Yes, this has been answered many times, and many times you have said such things as stop trying, stop disrupting, used words like stupid and idiotic to attack others ideas intellectually without any logical rebuttal to the argument that does not include circular reasoning or straw man attacks. Mojokabobo (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Not to let facts intrude, but it is sourced fact that "scientists do not take this theory seriously." Hipocrite (talk) 19:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

That is not the whole truth though. To say that "scientists do not take this theory seriously." is to introduce an absolute concept. Quite in fact, that is what the source was cherry picked for, a statement that synthesizes the idea that scientists do not take it seriously without representing the fact that there are scientists who take it seriously, violating neutrality.Mojokabobo (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

A tiny minority of scientists take it seriously. Please read WP:UNDUE. Hipocrite (talk) 19:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

From WP:UNDUE "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, it is appropriate to give the viewpoint more attention and space. However, such pages should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view." This article is about the minority viewpoints, conspiracy theories, so it is not undue to include the comment.Mojokabobo (talk) 20:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

let's now refute the idea that including the counterbalance is synthesis. - Straw man. Nobody has claimed that including counterblanace is synthesis.

without representing the fact that there are scientists who take it seriously - So find a source that supports that statement then. This source does not.

Yes, this has been answered many times, - And yet you continue to push your POV, even though you have answers that explain to you why you are wrong. That is intentional disruption. I think it's time we take this to a higher level, like AN/I or something. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

OpenFuture - "Straw man. Nobody has claimed that including counterblanace is synthesis."

"Sorry, that looks like synthesis to me. — Arthur Rubin"-"Definite SYN."OpenFuture

Allowing the minority opinion to be present helps aide in neutrality by allowing the due right for the minority view to be stated and given more prevalence in minority viewpoint articles. The majority viewpoint is noted, and granting the minority viewpoint in a minority article (this is not the main 9/11 attacks page) is not undue, or even possibly a link to Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (which would be a perfect source for denoting the minority viewpoint, and is a much better source than the original article), to counter balance the statement made about assenting scientists so as to note the position of the dissenting scientists, which would aide in neutrality.Mojokabobo (talk) 21:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

1. Yes, Mojokabobo. That was a clear case of synthesis. But that was *not* counterbalance, and even if it was, one case of counterbalance being synthesis does not mean all cases of counterbalance is synthesis. This is basic logic. So, nobody has claimed counterbalance is synthesis. I, and Arthur Rubin pointed out that specific statement was synthesis, and so it was.

2. This article is about conspiracy theories. Are you seriously claiming conspiracy theorists aren't mentioned? :-) And the scholar groups are mentioned. Both Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice are mentioned on the page in the text. Both groups and also Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth are listed under "Proponents of 9/11 conspiracy theories". The article on the 9/11 Truth movement are linked many times and mentioned all the time. How can you claim that this view isn't represented in the article?

3. The text does *not* claim that most scholars don't believe in the conspiracy theories. It claims that most scholars *refuse to debate* conspiracy theorists. If you want to balance that statement, you need to find a group of scholars that *do* debate them. Scholars for 9/11 Truth is *not* such a group.

Is any of the above unclear? --OpenFuture (talk) 22:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Why not just include the entire quote, with a However before it and just a parenthesis to identify the group: ...unwarranted credibility. However, "members of the group (Scholars for 9/11 Truth) don't consider themselves extremists. They simply believe the government's investigation was inadequate, and maintain that questioning widely held assumptions has been part of the job of scholars for centuries." (reference) Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

How can you claim this is POV and UNDUE? It's from a mainstream news article. That's just your personal opinion vs. a professional news organization. Guess who is considered more objective? Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The news-organisation has no opinion on this Wikipedia article, so you are wrong in that it's personal opinion vs prefessional news organization. Your comment is complete nonsense. REad up on WP:POLICY. Why that quote is POV and UNDUE has been explained multiple times above. If you didn't read it the first times, you aren't going read it now either. I'm not going to waste space with repeating the obvious. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Why not has been explained multiple times above. I don't think repeating it more is useful. From WP:DISRUPT:

A disruptive editor is an editor who:

...

Does not engage in consensus building:
- repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits;
- repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits.
Rejects community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors.

...

The question is why include the quote in the first place. There has been no argumentation for this. So there are plenty of arguments against, and no arguments for. What do you think is the inevitable conclusion of that situation? --OpenFuture (talk) 11:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I've pointed this out to you at least twice, but here it is a third time: Someone added the line about the NIST and mainstream scientists refusing to debate conspiracy theorists. That same source balances that statement, as quality news sources do, by saying the group does not consider itself to be a bunch of wackos, but they are just doing their jobs as scholars, and challenging official truths. By including the smear, but not the rebuttal, you are distorting what the source reported. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Again: It balances nothing. If you need a balance to the statement that mainstream scientists refuse to debate conspiracy theorists, you need a reference to a group that *does* debate conspiracy theorists.

That same source balances that statement, as quality news sources do, by saying the group does not consider itself to be a bunch of wackos' - How do you make that into a balancing of the first statement? Explain that logic.

Statement 1: Grouping A does not debate grouping B.
Statement 2: Group Q does not see themselves as belonging to grouping X.

Those are not even related, much less balancing each other. All you do is imply that 1. Grouping B and Grouping X is the same thing, and that Group Q belongs to grouping B. In this case, what you end up doing is labelling all conspiracy theorists as "extremists" and then labelling "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" as being conspiracy theorists.

By including the smear - What smear? The statement that mainstream scientists refusing to debate conspiracy theorists is not a smear.

The statement needs no balancing, and smearing conspiracy theorists is hardly the type of "balancing" you are intending to do. The adding makes no sense. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

If I refuse to debate you, it implies you are a bozo, whose opinions are unworthy of a response. Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It just proves what I said: There is no arguments for your position. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it proves that it's a smear. 12:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

If that's the kind of argument you want to make, no wonder you're not moving forward a bit. 87.166.105.72 (talk) 21:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Wait, what? You refusing to argue for your case proves that something is a smear? :) Please explain that logic, I'm genuinely interested in how you reach that conclusion. And also please tell me who is smearing what where, because I don't get that. :) --OpenFuture (talk) 22:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, once more: "If I refuse to debate you, it implies you are a bozo, whose opinions are unworthy of a response." So, when the NIST and mainstream scientists say "we refuse to debate or discuss this with certain people, but we will discuss it with other people" it means those who are excluded are bozos, nuts, wackos, etc. So when you insert a quote that the NIST and mainstream scientists refuse to debate "conspiracy theorists" (said with a sneer no doubt) it implies they are not rational, serious, sincere people who are worthy of discussing it with. So it's a smear. So we need to also include the balancing material, which the professional journalist did in the referenced news article. Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh come on. No. WP calling CTs bozos would be a smear. WP simply pointing out the fact that experts refuse to debate them because they think they're bozos is not. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK), 01:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

OK; you are saying that your refusal to debate me is a personal attack on me. I don't see the logic there, but if you say so. Can you please give yourself a warning for breaking the NPA rule? I reasonably can't, since I don't see your logic, but since you do and you admit to attacking me, please warn yourself. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It is a smear to reprint that one comment from the article, but not to allow the other side a chance to respond.Ghostofnemo (talk) 09:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

This has been answered multiple times above. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

And if I was refusing to debate you, this discussion would have ended a long, long time ago Open. Ghostofnemo (talk) 09:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The mainstream isn't calling the conspiracy theorists "extremist", just nuts. Your attempt to add the claim that the conspiracy theorists don't consider themselves extremist is not relevant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Then the "refusal to debate" line should be removed. As it is now, the source is being misrepresented to sound as if it is a given that those who question the official version of events are nuts. The news source balanced that with the group's statement that they are just scholars doing what scholars do. Ghostofnemo (talk) 09:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You are refusing to debate me. That you respond is not the same thing as debate. You have, from the start, completely ignored everything everyone tells you. Everything you say has already been answered multiple times. Your accusations of me from edit warring is disruption. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

No, the source is properly represented. The experts refuse to debate the conspiracy theorists because they know they're belligerent non-experts, and that it would serve no purpose other than to give said belligerent non-experts undue attention and credibility. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK), 12:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the level of expertise is relevant. The problem is, as is evident here, that conspiracy theorists simply refuse to listen to anything that contradicts them. Debate is therefore a waste of time, and serves only to give them attention they crave but don't deserve. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

If the mainstream news source that was quoted thinks it's appropriate to allow those who question the official story to defend their position, then that's a valid statement to be included in the article. Who are you to say CBS News is in error? They included both sides because they wanted their article to be NPOV, unlike this one. Ghostofnemo (talk) 09:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

This has been answered multiple times. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect citation and claim

{{editsemiprotected}} The sentence in the first paragraph makes the claim that "The civil engineering establishment generally accepts that the impacts of jet aircraft at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires, rather than controlled demolition, led to the collapse of the Twin Towers and WTC 7.[10]" citing the article "Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions" which can be found here: http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf

However, while the paper clearly demonstrates that the 'civil engineering establishment' believes that impact of aircraft and fire (along with the removal of insulation due to the impact) led to the collapse of the Twin Towers, nowhere does the article mention or even imply (or take a stance on) WTC 7. Therefore, I propose removing the "and WTC 7", or adding an additional source if there are papers that make similar claims for WTC 7.

I agree; the reference does not support that claim, and indeed our featured article 7 World Trade Center (well referenced) indicates that the cause was debris. If someone wishes to add information on that (with references), that would be great - but, pending that, I will remove WTC 7 from the paragraph. I am not doing this because I give weight to conspiracy theories, but simply based upon Wikipedia verifiability policy. Whether the crash 'led to the fall' is debate, and in substantiated by the current source, as you pointed out. It may well be verifiable through other reliable sources. Thanks, Chzz ► 22:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Done

On the other hand, isn't Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE), the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH), and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY) altogether pretty much a good proxy for "the establishment"? :) But it would be better find an explicit source, absolutely. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

OpenFuture, the FEMA report certainly did not conclude that fire and/or structural damage brought WTC 7 down, and the NIST report has some inconsistencies that would probably prevent it from being published in a notable, peer-reviewed journal. This is a topic I've researched extensively, and though I'd like to remain anonymous, I have proposed other changes (that were approved) regarding WTC 7 on the September 11th attacks page, along with the WTC 7 page. I am not aware of any SEI/ASCE, SFPE, AISC, CTBUH, or SEAoNY literature that supports the final NIST report on WTC 7. If it doesn't exist, I would caution you about spreading disinformation on such a heated topic. If you do think it exists, I would be happy to spend time looking into it. I am not here to push some theory that 9/11 was an inside job, what I am here to do is both search for Truth, and to spread Truth, even if that means spreading the knowledge that we just don't know yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.189.240 (talk) 02:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

All those organisations was involved in the NIST report. I would caution you about accusing people with no reason. Also, Wikipedia editors claiming inconsistencies in the NIST report would be WP:OR. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You can find the final report here: http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf

If you look at the report, specifically starting with page vii, you can see that the organizations you listed are credited as "Cooperating Organizations"[in the investigation]. I would hardly say that is the same as endorsing the conclusion, or that it qualifies as the 'establishment' agreeing upon the NIST conclusion. If you have other evidence that those organizations do support NIST's final report though, I'll reconsider and start spreading that information and including it in my future edits and proposals.

New study that should be included

There is a new study out: "Discussion of "What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse of World Trade Center Twin Towers in New York" by Bazant, Le, Greening and Benson" by Anders Björkman, set to be published in ASCE - Journal of Engineering Mechanics July 2010, it should be included right below the original Bazant, Le, Greening and Benson-article quote. Juhobui (talk) 21:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Absolute Bias

I take issue with this quote from the article "Many mainstream scientists refuse to debate conspiracy theorists to avoid giving them unwarranted credibility." in the section 'World Trade Center Collapse'. Nowhere in the 'official' storyline, i.e. (for the purposes of this discussion) the wiki article september 11 attacks does it say anything along the lines of 'Many people claim that mainstream scientists who worked for NIST were heavily influenced by political agendas'. If we really want to drop the bias, there is a simple answer... change "Many mainstream scientists refuse to debate conspiracy theorists to avoid giving them unwarranted credibility." to "Many officials refuse to debate alternate theories to avoid giving them (the alternate theories) any credibility". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mojokabobo (talk • contribs) 02:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Moved to bottom as per Manual of style Edkollin (talk) 16:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The first part I don't understand what you are trying to say. For the second part, the refusal to give conspiracy theories credibility extends beyond NIST, so the change would be misleading. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I have reformatted my submission OpenFuture, and hopefully my changes articulate what I was trying to say a bit more clearly. I have addressed your reference to the NIST comment as well with my format. Mojokabobo (talk) 21:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

P.S. The real issue that I have with this whole thing, is the idea that by debating something, you are therefore giving it credibility. Point in fact is that any true scientist will look at all of the information and evidence, and then postulate their hypothesis. A true scientist does not "dismiss arguments so as to deny them credibility". That, quite in fact, flies in the face of the scientific method, and is preposterous from a scientific standpoint. I suppose if the 'conspiracy theory', which quite in fact, could also just be labeled 'theory' (conspiracy theory is often used to slander and discredit many valid theories) was something more along the lines of absolute fiction (i.e. WTC 7 fell due to the fact that an office worker on the 14th floor of the building crammed 200 peeps into the office microwave and set it to high for 10 minutes, causing the peeps to erupt in a violent explosion that took out the support columns of the building, causing it to accelerate to free fall collapse) then it could be understandably dismissed. The previous example is obviously fanciful and clearly false, and is understandably dismissed; however, even though it is easily dismissed, it would not be difficult to discredit the idea.

The real issue is when the theories are within the realm of possibility, and perhaps even more credible than the so-called mainstream theories. The term 'conspiracy theory' should not be utilized in a propaganda-like form to utterly dismiss possible alternate theories, since the scientific method relies upon the analysis of all possible (and i want to emphasize the word possible here) theories. To say that all of the theories mentioned in this article are utterly dismissed by scientists, is preposterous. To make my point, here is a list of over 1000 architects and engineers (whom are scientists (science has many different fields)) that do not believe the official 9/11 theory, and therefore, believe by proxy in what this website seems to collude with the establishment in labeling a 'dismissed conspiracy theory': http://www.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php . Mojokabobo (talk) 21:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Changing "mainstream scientists" to "officials" changes the content and meaning of the sentence completely. Whether you thing the principle of not discussing to not give credibility works or not is hardly relevant. What's relevent is if *they* think it works. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you're last comment made very little sense to me; and, I am also confused as to whom you are referring to when you said *they*. By the way, of course I want to change the content and meaning of the sentence completely, as I have stated and produced evidence of (see the link), it is a biased and inaccurate statement. I have produced a citation showing many scientists who disagree with the official 9/11 theory, in contrast to the original statement that "many scientists refuse to debate the conspiracy theorists". Can you link a citation that has a larger amount of scientists who agree with the official theory? If you cannot, than the evidence of the petition that I presented should easily be enough to revise or delete the sentence. Mojokabobo (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

No, that is not in contrast. That some scientists support conspiracy theories does not contradict that many scientist refuse to debate them. The original statement is supported by it's source, which fulfills WP:RS, etc. The changes you want to make would mean the satement contradicts it's source, which I hope you realize is against Wikipedia policy. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I had not noticed that there was a citation for that sentence. In fact, you should go to the source and read the article that led to that sentence being cited. The statement is basically issued without qualification, and is essentially nothing more than a footnote in the article, and quite in fact, was nowhere near to being the conclusion of the article. In fact, here is the conclusion of the article, which seems to be completely contrary to the statement we are debating which made it into the "9/11 conspiracy theories" article:

""Are you blackballed for delving into this topic?", "Oh yes," Wood said. "And that is why there are so few who do. Most contracts have something to do with some government research lab. So what would that do to you? The consequences are too great for a career. But I made the choice that truth was more important. If we're in higher education to be trying to encourage critical thinking," Wood says, "why would we say 'believe this because everybody else does?'"

So the actual citation, the actual article that is referenced to establish the idea that many mainstream scientists refuse to debate conspiracy theories, is not a study/article with the intention of concluding such a thesis, is hardly a vetted source for the conclusion of the statement, has no real supporting facts to qualify the statement, and quite in fact, is actually an article highlighting the debate on the 9/11 theories between scientists which ends with a conclusion that is contrary to the original statement, violating Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, to quote wikipedia policy, "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. It requires that all majority- and significant-minority views be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material". So, tell me how the original statement should remain as is, when the original statement as is basically contradicts the thesis of the source citation? Mojokabobo (talk) 00:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be a conclusion to be a source, and it doesn't have to be a peer-reviewed research paper to be a WP:RS, and it odes *not* end with a conclusion that is contrary to the statement that it's used to source (and even if it didn't that wouldn't be POV). Tha statement in the article is correct and sourced. You are grasping at straws in an effort to push some sort of agenda (which I admittedly are not sure what it is). It's not going to work, give up. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no other agenda than my stated agenda, addressing bias. I did not realize at first that the quote that I had contention with was a quote from a source, as I have stated, which is why my argument did change. The issue that I now have is that the source used to include the snippet in the article is unfairly represented in comparison to what the article was about. This violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, plain and simple. Your use of a straw man argument in saying that i have some sort of agenda is not appreciated. By the way, the way you should say it is "I admittedly AM not sure what it is". Are is for the plural and second person forms of the verb. I don't really care about the spelling mistakes but since you do not seem to be a native English speaker I thought I'd help you a bit on that one. Mojokabobo (talk) 11:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no bias in the section you are addressing, but your proposed changes introduces bias. The source is not unfairly represented. NPOV is also not about fairly representing one source, but about fairly representing the topic as a whole. Your insistance to introduce POV in the article, using various incorrect claims to support this, does indicate that you have an agenda, or you would have stopped insisting by now. Thanks for your grammar correction, it is appreciated, although I'm already aware that this is one of the errors I make when I don't proof read before posting. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, let's look at the sentence in the neutrality policy. "It requires that all majority- and significant-minority views be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material." A snippit was taken from the source in contention which states basically that NIST and many mainstream scientists refuse to debate conspiracy theories to avoid giving them credibility. The source article then includes various references to scientists who do debate the official 9/11 story. So the source is a source about two conflicting sides of the coin. By including only the one side, which really had very little prevalence within the article, we are ignoring the other views which are presented in the article, which through CONTEXT are supposed to contrast with the statements about NIST and other mainstream scientists refusing to debate the theories. By omitting this CONTEXT of the majority/minority viewpoints within the source, the source should not be quoted as simply as it is. Mojokabobo (talk) 13:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You have stated that I am attempting to introduce pov into this article, which is patently false. I am attempting to address bias. Your use of straw man arguments and logical fallacies is evidence that you are the one with the agenda and the bias. I have, on the other hand, shown myself to be amicable and willing to admit fault. I am willing to admit fault and able to address issues in a logical manner. Perhaps you should step back from the discussion for a bit, come back, and perhaps reevaluate whether the position you have taken up is actually defensible. The source cited for the inclusion of the disputed text is unfairly taken out of context and violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Mojokabobo (talk) 13:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, the NPOV policy is not about repenting each source are presented in it's entirety. It's about presenting differing views. These differing views *are* being presented in this article. You can not reasonably claim that in this article about 9/11 conspiracy theories only the side that do not agree with the conspiracy theories are being presented. That just makes no sense. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I think the bias could be addressed simply and easily within the disputed paragraph if this bit were included (I have paraphrased it a bit so that it will make sense in the 9/11 conspiracy theories article). All that would have to be done is add this sentence after the spot where it talks about NIST and mainstream scientists refusing to debate the theories: "Members of certain conspiracy groups comprised of scientists don't consider themselves extremists. They simply believe the government's investigation was inadequate, and maintain that questioning widely held assumptions has been part of the job of scholars for centuries." If that sentence were added, than the article which was cited would be presented fairly and with context, and the disputed section would no longer violate Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Is this an amicable compromise? Mojokabobo (talk) 14:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is the actual quote from the article. It took me a while to find it, because it is not really the main thrust of the article. "The standards and technology institute, and many mainstream scientists, won't debate conspiracy theorists, saying they don't want to lend them unwarranted credibility." Why not use the full sentence in the article with quotation marks? And, to be fair, this should be included from the article too, because this is the main thrust of the article: "Five years after the terrorist attacks, a community that believes widely discredited ideas about what happened on Sept. 11, 2001, persists and even thrives. Members trade their ideas on the Internet and in self-published papers and in books. About 500 of them attended a recent conference in Chicago. The movement claims to be drawing fresh energy and credibility from a recently formed group called Scholars for 9/11 Truth." Well, that's a bit long, but it could be shortened and paraphrased. The article is really about university professors who question the official version of events.Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Right Ghostofnemo, so isn't it odd what was actually selected from the article to be included in the wiki!? Mojokabobo (talk) 11:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I moved things around a little and added a sentence to the end of the paragraph. I think that is a little more NPOV now.Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

This is backwards. Wikipedia sourcing is not about representing the articles used as sources. Sources are used to show that the Wikipedia statements are correct. There is no requirement that every source used must be represented fully in the article. I think the addition to the mention of 9/11 Scholars for Truth is WP:UNDUE, especially considering the group split soon after the publication of this article and most members apparently left. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you refer me to the Wikipedia policy statement on that? You're saying you can pick one line out of an article that is about something else? So I can take a line out of an article about dogs to prove that Britain switched to the metric system? "Rover was 22 inches tall at the shoulder, but after we went to the metric system here in Britain, I never bothered to measure him again." That seems a bit lazy. Why not find an article that is actually about Britain and the metric system for your source?Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Policy of what? I obviously can not refer you to a policy that does not exist. The relevant policy is WP:SOURCE. Again, there is no policy that the article must accurately reflect the source in it's entirety. There will be better sources for a claim that Britain switched to the metric system so the example is bad. But in a more reasonable example, you can quote an article on the benefits of the metric system to support the statement that Britain switched, without having to quote the conclusion that the metric system is superior, yes. And you can take an line about German Shephards from the article about Rover the German Shephards without having to quote the conclusion that Rover is the most awesome German Shephard ever. And yes, you can quote an article about most mainstream scientists not wanting to debate conspiracy theories, without also having to mention a fringe group that also is mentioned in the article.

So yes, why *not* find a better source? You are perfectly welcome to do so. But this discussion has not been about replacing the source with a better one. If you have one, please present it. If you claim the statement is wrong, please present evidence for that. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

As I stated earlier "To say that all of the theories mentioned in this article are utterly dismissed by scientists, is preposterous. To make my point, here is a list of over 1000 architects and engineers (whom are scientists (science has many different fields)) that do not believe the official 9/11 theory, and therefore, believe by proxy in what this website seems to collude with the establishment in labeling a 'dismissed conspiracy theory': http://www.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php". There, the statement is wrong. Mojokabobo (talk) 13:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You also seem to ignore the debate about the sentence's neutrality, and claim that the issue is source and has nothing to do with neutrality. For your benefit, once again here is the link to the wiki neutrality rule i am referring and the quote from it. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view to quote wikipedia policy, "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. It requires that all majority- and significant-minority views be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material". Let's note the words IN ROUGH PROPORTION TO THEIR PREVALENCE WITHIN THE SOURCE MATERIAL (note, i am not trying to scream, i just am wiki syntax illiterate (i'm still new), and so i don't know how to make italics/bold/underline whatnot). Ghostofnemo hit it dead on with his example about the dogs. Mojokabobo (talk) 13:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Mojokabobo: "To say that all of the theories mentioned in this article are utterly dismissed by scientists, is preposterous." Nobody says that. Case closed. "IN ROUGH PROPORTION TO THEIR PREVALENCE WITHIN THE SOURCE MATERIAL"'. Yes, this is correct. Your suggested changes were not reflected in the source material at all. You suggested changes based on a perceived POV which did not exist, a misunderstanding partly based on you not seeing that the statement was sourced. You suggested changes that was not sourced and in fact contradicted by the source. Can we close the debate on that now? There is no POV problem to fix. Your suggested changes introduced a POV that contradicted the source. Case closed. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

This is how it reads now. "However, the NIST and many mainstream scientists refuse to debate conspiracy theorists, they say to avoid giving them unwarranted credibility." That's a little more NPOV. But I don't understand why it is ok to remove referenced material from the 9/11 article for challenging the official version of events, but it's ok to insert material in this article that contradicts referenced assertions about the topic of the article. Here's an example. This is from the same section about the WTC collapse. Alternative theories are given, and then this: "Specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering generally accept the model of a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse of the World Trade Center buildings, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives." Now, if I tried to insert an alternative theory in the 9/11 article, to balance a claim made there, how long would it stay in before being deleted? I think challenges should be allowed in both articles, but this doesn't seem to be what is happening.Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It's neither more nor less NPOV. It's a change that means we quote the source almost word by word. That has nothing to do with POV. It does not change the statement of the view in any significant way. But I don't understand why it is ok to remove referenced material from the 9/11 article for challenging the official version of events. Nobody did that or said it was OK. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has now fallen into a hole that is quote common. Discussion is of hypothetics, and implications, like "Why is it ok to do X" when nobody has done X or said it's OK to do X. The discussion therefore at this point is completely removed from the topic of the article. To go further, do what was done at the beginning of this discussion: State exactly what you think is problematic with the article as it stands, explain WHY you think it's problematic, and suggest a change for an improvement. But continuing this discussion into hypothetical tangents is pointless. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, The simple version of exactly what I think is wrong, is that the text in dispute violates neutrality by not including the context in which the statement was qualified. A simple solution would be to include this text after the sentence about NIST and mainstream scientists refusing to debate conspiracy theorists (I have paraphrased it a bit so that it will make sense in the 9/11 conspiracy theories article)-"Members of certain conspiracy groups comprised of scientists don't consider themselves extremists. They simply believe the government's investigation was inadequate, and maintain that questioning widely held assumptions has been part of the job of scholars for centuries." If that sentence were added, than the article which was cited would be presented fairly and with context, and the disputed section would no longer violate Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Is this an amicable compromise? Mojokabobo (talk) 14:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

1. I can see nothing that violated neutrality in that text, and you do not explain how it would do so. In what way is it violating neutrality to point out that many scientists refuse to discuss the conspiracy theories, in an article about conspiracy theories?

2. Your proposed addition is factually incorrect. You claim that the scientists in conspiracy groups only want further research and do not support any conspiracy theories. That statement is blatantly and obviously incorrect, especially in the light of the group that was referenced before, Scholars for 9/11 Truth, where the only remaining founder, James Fetzer, has written a book about the 9/11 Conspiracy, called aptly, "The 9/11 Conspiracy". Steven E Jones, the other founder, who subsequently broke out, does not only call for more research, he believs that WTC was destroyed in a controlled demolition, so he is also somebody who believes in a conspiracy. So adding that sentence would not only violate NPOV, it would be a direct falsehood. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

My suggested addition is basically taken directly from the source citation that is in dispute. Here are the words from the article exactly as they are stated: "Members of the group don't consider themselves extremists. They simply believe the government's investigation was inadequate, and maintain that questioning widely held assumptions has been part of the job of scholars for centuries."

So are you saying that the article is incorrect, that it is not valid?? Whenever I made attempts to invalidate the first statement about mainstream scientists refusing to debate, you disregarded my arguments and stated that I was working for an agenda. You are exhibiting a perfect example of the Pot calling the kettle black. Mojokabobo (talk) 14:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The statement in the source is about one particular group, you changed it to being generic and fuzzy. If the statement was true when the article was published I do not know. Perhaps the journalist talked to people within the group that was in a minority. Maybe the groups opinion has changed. Maybe they simply lied. It is obviously not true anymore, however. In fact, I fail to find any group of scholars for 9/11 truth that do *not* support the idea that 9/11 was demolished with explosives.

I have no idea what you mean with "your attempt to invalidate the first statement". I have seen no such attempts. What you have done is suggested ways to change it that are incorrect, unsourced and biased. That doesn't invalidate anything. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, then how about "Members of the group Scholars for 9/11 truth don't consider themselves extremists. They simply believe the government's investigation was inadequate, and maintain that questioning widely held assumptions has been part of the job of scholars for centuries."

That would present the alternate side of the pov from that article. To answer your question before about "In what way is it violating neutrality", it is violating neutrality by presenting only one side of the argument of the article. By only presenting that one side of the issue, it is taking the comment out of context and disproportionately representing the article in question. That is not neutral.

And my attempts to invalidate the first statement were near the beginning, in the P.S. Basically I stated that it flies in the face of the scientific method to dismiss ideas outright to deny them credibility. Any good scientist analyzes all of the evidence at hand, and is able to substantiate their position with argument and reason. Mojokabobo (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

That change would again give undue weight to that particular group.

Once again: There is no policy to present every article in it's entirety. You need to present the alternative POV of the issue as a whole, not every single source. The POV that WTC was destroyed by demolition is already well represented in this article, hence there is no POV issue. It would only be POV if there in fact is a large group of people from NIST or mainstream scientists that actively *do* take the debate. If this is the case, then this needs to be mentioned, and sourced. But as long as many NIST or mainstream scholars refuse to take the debate, and no siginicant group *do* take the debate, then the statement is NPOV. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, here's a large group of mainstream scientists who do take the debate. http://www.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php Therefore the statement is not NPOV. Mojokabobo (talk) 14:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. No, those are one of the "scholars for conspiracy theory" groups, and hence are *not* a group of mainstream scientists willing to take the debate with conspiracy theorists. Unless you claim they all have multiple personality disorder and debate with themselves. ;) --OpenFuture (talk) 15:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

LOL, so here I present evidence, verifiable evidence, of a large group of mainstream scientists who have not only taken up the debate, but have actually come to the conclusion that the conspiracy theorists have some valid points and that a new independent investigation needs to be initiated, and you completely disqualify the evidence by labeling those same scientists as conspiracy theorists themselves!! that's laughable at best, and imho a perfect example of the logical fallacy of circular reasoning. A scientist that debates the truth about 9/11 is therefore a conspiracy theorist, and so therefore no scientists debate 9/11 conspiracy theorists. That's laughable and Orwellian. Mojokabobo (talk) 15:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

On top of that, the scientists on that petition have not stated any specific conspiracy theory claims. Read the petition text :"On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and affiliates hereby petition for, and demand, a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 – specifically the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7. We believe there is sufficient doubt about the official story to justify re-opening the 9/11 investigation. The new investigation must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that might have been the actual cause of the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7." There is no direct support for the idea that any conclusion has been made, aside from the conclusion that the evidence points to the idea that there needs to be a new investigation, especially into the possibility of explosives. You state it as if they are straight out advocating that the whole thing, 9/11 and all, is one big conspiracy, but that is not what the petition states AT ALL. Mojokabobo (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You are only looking at the petition, not at the rest of the site, which clearly pushes a controlled demolition scenario. See Architects_&_Engineers_for_9/11_Truth for more references and sources on the issue. They are *not* a group taking the debate with conspiracy theorists. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The people who signed that petition did not sign a petition advocating everything that is on that site, they signed a petition stating exactly this, "On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and affiliates hereby petition for, and demand, a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 – specifically the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7. We believe there is sufficient doubt about the official story to justify re-opening the 9/11 investigation. The new investigation must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that might have been the actual cause of the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7." anything else that is on that website has nothing to do with the beliefs of those on the petition, and cannot be used to discredit them as being conspiracy theorists!! It's a list of thousands of scientists! How can that be debated!?!? Mojokabobo (talk) 16:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Again you are trying to take the debate into irrelevant tangents, implying that I've said things I have not said, etc. I repeat: The statement we now are debating would only be POV if there in fact is a large group of people from NIST or mainstream scientists that actively *do* take the debate with conspiracy theorists. Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth are not that. Full stop. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

(And please, can't you indent your answers?) --OpenFuture (talk) 16:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to agree to completely disagree. Your position ignores the credibility of thousands of scientists and is faulty. You refuse to acknowledge these architects and engineers as valid proof that scientists are debating the issue. You refuse to allow the idea that active mainstream scientists exist that question 9/11, and that is a violation of neutrality. I am done arguing with you. Full Stop. Mojokabobo (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I have done none of the things you say I do. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

How can you forbid editors to add material that appears in mainstream news sources about this topic? What gives you the authority to be the gatekeeper who can pick and chose which lines of a referenced source can be included? Do you have some special qualification that gives you the authority to second guess CBS News as to what should or should not be a valid topic in regards to this subject? Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You need to be more careful with your indentation. You indented it so it looks like you are answering me, yet you are clearly talking to someone else, as I did nothing of the things you mention. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I was answering you. You: "Your proposed addition is factually incorrect. You claim that the scientists in conspiracy groups only want further research and do not support any conspiracy theories. That statement is blatantly and obviously incorrect, especially in the light of the group that was referenced before, Scholars for 9/11 Truth, where the only remaining founder, James Fetzer, has written a book about the 9/11 Conspiracy, called aptly, "The 9/11 Conspiracy". Steven E Jones, the other founder, who subsequently broke out, does not only call for more research, he believs that WTC was destroyed in a controlled demolition, so he is also somebody who believes in a conspiracy. So adding that sentence would not only violate NPOV, it would be a direct falsehood." Mojokabobo: "Here are the words from the article exactly as they are stated: "Members of the group don't consider themselves extremists. They simply believe the government's investigation was inadequate, and maintain that questioning widely held assumptions has been part of the job of scholars for centuries."" Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, then the answers are: "I can't", "Nothing" and "No". I hope this helped? --OpenFuture (talk) 09:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

So that means Mojokabobo can insert the disputed sentence with the supporting reference? Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I just did it. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You, and everyone else, is allowed to do anything that doesn't violate Wikipedia policies. This is enforced by consensus. Read WP:POLICY for more information.

Can you explain to me how equating those who who have valid questions with conspiracy theorists, as your edit just did, is adding "balance" as your edit summary claimed? You now made the article imply that everyone "questioning the government's findings" are to be clumped together with those who should not be given unwarranted credibility. Mojokabobo and me agreed that this isn't the case (even though Mojokabobo hasn't been able to give any example of any scholar questioning the official findings that isn't also a conspiracy theorist, but that's another issue). Are you saying you don't agree? If you don't agree, why should those with legitimate questions (questions who *are* being debated and answered) be mentioned right after the conspiracy theorists, whose nonsense is being ignored?

Also, it's best to mention this again, since you are coming in at the end of a debate that had otherwise concluded: NPOV does *not* mean you have to represent each source in it's entirety. Also, the source states that members of the group don't consider themselves conspiracy theorists, which probably is true. But the group as a whole supports the conspiracy theory of controlled demolition. Should we really base something in the article on a quote that we know is not correct? Also, you change the source. The quote is about the "members of the group", you changed it to "some of those questioning". So I'd say that source doesn't support the statement. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I moderated the statement with the words "some of those questioning" to show that this is a subgroup of those who question the official findings. The sourced article points out that these "conspiracy theorists" who the NIST refuses to engage with, do not consider themselves to be extremists. It's clearly spelled out in the referenced article. If you are going to include a line from the source calling the people discussed in the article "conspiracy theorists" (which is often used as a smear) it is NPOV to include the rest of the information in the article pointing out that they are only questioning the official version of events, which seems unlikely to them, and they are not accusing the Queen of England or UFO's of responsibility for the collapses.Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I notice you don't answer any of my questions.

If the conspiracy theorists are extremists or not is irrelevant. The statement isn't that mainstream scientists refuse to debate them because they are extremists, but to not give the conspiracy theorists unwarranted exposure.

Yes I know you "moderated" the statement, which means that it no longer accurately reflects what is said in the source, as mentioned above. Did you read all of my comment before you answered it?

For everything you say, this has already been answered multiple times in the debate with Mojokabobo. See above. If I'm unclear, tell me, but don't try to disrupt the discussion by bringing up issues that already have been answered over and over and over. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm basing my edits on the referenced news source. YOU raised questions about the group "Scholars for 9/11 Truth", questions that are not in the article, but to make it clear that the statement refers to some people in that group, and not to the group as a whole, I changed the lead in. We could change it back to match the article exactly, but YOU said that would be inappropriate. The news article says, "The standards and technology institute, and many mainstream scientists, won't debate conspiracy theorists, saying they don't want to lend them unwarranted credibility." The Wikipedia article says, "However, the NIST and many mainstream scientists refuse to debate conspiracy theorists, they say to avoid giving them unwarranted credibility." That seems like a pretty good paraphrase. I asked you if you had a reason for keeping relevant material from a mainstream news article out of the article, or any special expertise that gives you the authority to exclude information in news articles about this topic, and you said no. So I assumed that meant the material could be included.Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You still haven't answered any of my questions.

1. Can you explain to me how equating those who who have valid questions with conspiracy theorists, as your edit just did, is adding "balance" as your edit summary claimed?

2. You now made the article imply that everyone "questioning the government's findings" are to be clumped together with those who should not be given unwarranted credibility. Mojokabobo and me agreed that this isn't the case (even though Mojokabobo hasn't been able to give any example of any scholar questioning the official findings that isn't also a conspiracy theorist, but that's another issue). Are you saying you don't agree?

3. If you don't agree, why should those with legitimate questions (questions who *are* being debated and answered) be mentioned right after the conspiracy theorists, whose nonsense is being ignored?

The problems I have with the added statement is the following:

a) The statement "But some of those questioning the government's findings don't consider themselves extremists" is not what the article says. The article says that "Members of group (Scholars for 9/11 Truth) don't consider themselves extremists". The text in the article is not supported by the source. But changing the statement so it accurately reflects the source singles out one particular non-notable group.

b) It unfairly groups people who question the governments findings with conspiracy theorists.

c) The statement "They simply believe the government's investigation was inadequate" is untrue. "They" are in this case the group Scholars for 9/11 Truth, which your edit of course doesn't let on. But that fact is that Scholars for 9/11 Truth does not simply believe this. It is a conspiracy theory group, whose conspiracy theories were so unrealistic and crazy that most members left and started Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice, a group that still believes in controlled demolition, but has eschewed the other even crazier theories of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. So the statement is blatantly false.

It is therefore clear to me that the addition of the statement adds falsehood, unsourced statements and POV to the article. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

1. News sources try to be balanced. If A says x and B says y, if they are doing a good job they include different points of view. You want to quote the source's A without quoting the source's B. That's not NPOV.

2. I'm not clumping everyone together. That's what the phrase "But some of those questioning" was added. I see that Arthur Rubin has removed the entire section, claiming it was unreferenced, when it was actually referenced. Why am I not surprised by this?

3.Oh, has the NIST "debated" the A&E for 911 Truth group? I must have missed that. On which news program was the debate broadcast? Do you have a news source about the debate?

a. I say when in doubt, quote the news source precisely. If CBS News thinks the group is notable, it's notable.

b. That is CBS's problem, not ours.

c. Again, when in doubt, we can't over-rule mainstream news sources. They are the professional journalists and it is their story we are quoting. If we change the slant of their article, it turns into original research.

It is sourced, there is/was a reference to a mainstream news article. If you think CBS is in error, you need to find a news article or other reliable source that points this out. That still doesn't give you the authority to remove it though.Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The material you quoted is not in the CBS news article in the archives. If you can find a source for it, then we can discuss whether it's outweighed by contrary statements or is misleading, but, as it stands, it's not there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is the quote from the CBS article: "Members of the group don't consider themselves extremists. They simply believe the government's investigation was inadequate, and maintain that questioning widely held assumptions has been part of the job of scholars for centuries." Here is the url: http://web.archive.org/web/20071224135836/http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/06/ap/national/mainD8JB6LTG0.shtml The material that was in quotation marks in this Wikipedia article matches the source exactly. You didn't like my paraphrase of the first line? Fine, we'll just use the entire quote exactly as given by the source.Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

By my count, the quote is in the 13th paragraph. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It was not a paraphrase, you changed the meaning. If we use the exact quote, we give WP:UNDUE weight to one group. This group also in the article claims not to be extremists, when in fact a couple of months later many members exited the group because it was *too extreme*. I have repeatedly stated this above, over and over and over. Your continued ignoring of arguments makes it hard to assume good faith. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

You still refuse to answer my questions, ignore my explanations and contradict yourself. I have explained why the part is unsourced and POV. Since you refuse to read my explanations or explain what in them you don't understand, I can do no more. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I patiently answered your questions point by point by point by point. It's ridiculous that you are putting me through all this over including referenced material from a news article. I understand you may not like my paraphrase of the first line. That was done to make you happy. If it doesn't make you happy, we can include the version in the article. You can't over-rule what CBS News is reporting. We're just Wikipedia editors here, not media critics. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

No you have not answered. You answers do generally not answer my questions. I asked if you agreed to separating quetsioning and conspiracism. But your answer "I'm not clumping them together" is not an answer to the question. You did clump them together. That's not the question. The question if if you agree that we should not. You have not answered that question. And neither have you answered the others.

And you did not respond to any of my stated problems with the inclusions either. If you don't want to argue for your suggestions and edit, then don't. But then also do not waste your and our time with responding on this page. Either you answer questions and arguments, or you don't respond at all. Everything else is intentional disruption, and will get you blocked sooner or later. That's not constructive behaviour. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I responded to each of your points. You are just running me around in circles and obfuscating. You want to use a source to tell A's side of the story, but want to omit B's side of the story from the same source. That's not neutral and it borders on being intellectually dishonest. You can't do that. You're just using that one line to smear the other side and not allowing a rebuttal. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Another possible solution is to delete that entire paragraph (which begins with, "The NIST has rejected the theory."). It's a refutation of a conspiracy theory, not a conspiracy theory, so I don't know what it's doing in this article in the first place. How does that sound? Or we can include this after the part about refusing to debate conspiracy theorists: "Members of the group (Scholars for 9/11 Truth) don't consider themselves extremists. They simply believe the government's investigation was inadequate, and maintain that questioning widely held assumptions has been part of the job of scholars for centuries." Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This has been answered multiple times above. Read the answers. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

And I've replied several times that your personal opinions on this topic do not trump CBS News. Sorry, that's just how it works. You can't say, "We can't use this published material because it's false." You have to find a source that says it's false. And even then you can't remove the first news article unless it proves decisively that it was actually false, not just a difference of opinion or point of view. Please answer this one, direct question for me. Why is it ok to put conspiracy theory rebuttals in this article, while material explaining those theories, with mainstream news articles as references, is being removed? Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

And that is again a straw man. This is not my personal opinion, not CBS news. The argument is not that it's false. You continue to ignore my arguments, but still answer. This is intentional disruption from your side. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

You're not saying anything! Please read what you just wrote. If the argument is not that the CBS News article is false, then what, exactly, is your argument? What arguments am I ignoring? I've already tried to respond and your response has been that my responses are insufficient. What more can I do? Please, spell it out for me BRIEFLY. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The arguments have been repeated many times above. Your failure to read them is not my problem, I will not repeat them more times. Three times of repeating is plenty enough. If the arguments are unclear, point out what is unclear. If not, answer them. If you can't answer them, that's because you are wrong, and then give up, and stop disrupting. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't find the paragraph in the CBS article, because the paraphrase removed the context. However, as OpenFuture notes, if we were to include that, we'd need to include the fact that other former members of the group do consider it extremist. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

If you can find that in a reliable source, please feel free to add that. We have to get the quote from the CBS News article back into this article first though: "Members of group (Scholars for 9/11 Truth) don't consider themselves extremists. They simply believe the government's investigation was inadequate, and maintain that questioning widely held assumptions has been part of the job of scholars for centuries."(reference) It's in the 13th paragraph of the story. May I reinsert it? Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you may, but since that statement still is WP:POV and WP:UNDUE it's going to be removed again and you will sooner or later end up blocked because of disruptive editing. You need to start follwoing wikipedia rules and procedures. Read WP:DISRUPT and WP:TEDIOUS to learn what you are doing wrong. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Your talking nonsense. Yes, I may, but it will immediately be removed? Anyway, I just noticed this discussion is continued below under "CBS on opinions of scientists". Let's discuss it there. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I may, but it will immediately be removed? - Correct. That's how Wikipedia works, anyone can edit, but what stays is decided by WP:CONSENSUS. Read up on it. Things that don't follow WP:POLICY will be removed. Read up on that too. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but what OpenFuture is trying to say is that since that quote says that Scholars for 9/11 truth don't consider themselves extremist, it is automatically POV. Said organization cannot make an NPOV statement about itself. No matter what they personally believe, they are not simply supporting more investigation and fact-finding, they are advocating alternate theories concerning the 9/11 attacks. What OpenFuture is trying to say concerning mainstream scientists debating on the subject, is that no mainstream scientists who don't believe in alternate explanations of 9/11 are willing to engage the conspiracy/alternate theory adherents in debate. Thus, the statement cannot be included, because without a mainstream response it would be unbalanced? BlckTar (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC).

^ The 911 Truth Movement: Debunking the official story by Kevin Howley an associate professor of media studies at DePauw University published by the Bloomington Alternative March 7, 2010
^ The Media Response to the Growing Influence of the 9/11 Truth Movement. Part II: A Survey of Attitude Change in 2009-2010 Global Research Centre February 15, 2010

[1] The 911 Truth Movement: Debunking the official story by Kevin Howley an associate professor of media studies at DePauw University published by the Bloomington Alternative March 7, 2010

[2] The Media Response to the Growing Influence of the 9/11 Truth Movement. Part II: A Survey of Attitude Change in 2009-2010 Global Research Centre February 15, 2010

[1]

[2]