Talk:Jim Hoffman

message: I think suggesting that WTC 7 was deliberately dynamited amounts to a conspiracy theory. It is, well, a theory about a conspiracy. That is more specific than just "researcher" - he could be researching the DNA of unidentified victims, for example. JFW | T@lk 01:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's a conspiracy theory. Unfortunately some people want to eradicate that term from all articles, even when used appropriately. Rhobite 03:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The appopriate use of the term "conspiracy theory" would also equate its use when referring to the official story, which has yet to be conclusively proven and is merely theory. (Coconuteire, can't sign in) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.206.11.249 (talk) 12:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Please stop spamming 'conspiracy theorist' in here.  The individual does scientific research.Bov 01:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Where did this guy learn how to impliment the scientific method? Where did he go to college? --130.191.17.38 20:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  He attended the University of Massachussetts (not sure which one), if I remember correctly. He's a software engineer, as am I. We are generally taught how to implement the scientific method. Coconuteire 02:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Researcher vs. CT

message: I removed the paragraph copied from 911research.wtc7.net. That page says it's copyrighted. If we have permission to use it, we can discuss putting it back in. Tom Harrison Talk 15:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed copied paragraph 

message: This article is put in the category "Articles lacking sources". Which part of the article is lacking ressources?
And which criteria are there for putting someone in the "conspiracy theorist" category.?
--EyesAllMine 16:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For 'articles lacking sources', that's because of the citation request -- "Hoffman's work has been featured in articles in Science News, Scientific American, Science Digest [citation needed]." Using that template causes the atricle to be put in that category. Tom Harrison Talk 16:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: For "conspiracy theorist", I would ask if his allegations have these Conspiracy theory#Features. Tom Harrison Talk 16:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for your information. But where does that Conspiracy theory#Features list come from? has it got any sources? --EyesAllMine 17:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Conspiracy theory#References, especially Melley and Fenster, if I remember. You could also speak to Cberlet and Adhib. Tom Harrison Talk 17:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't say that he does fit. I didn't add the category. Tom Harrison Talk 17:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don Paul and Jim Hoffman co-authored a book called Waking up from our Nightmare: The 9/11 Crimes in New York City.  The premise of the book is that a secret team, within the United States government itself, was responsible for ensuring the 9/11 attacks were carried out -- Paul and Hoffman say that a conspiracy was required to accomplish this, and Paul and Hoffman have presented this as an alternative theory (aka conspiracy theory) to the mainstream media/911 Commission report account.  Nothing pejorative about that, just a way to explain that Paul and Hoffman are among the recent authors who offer this alternative view that by its very nature requires a governmental conspiracy to accomplish -- a requirement that they specifically identify and embrace in their book.  Morton devonshire 20:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Here we are again back to this "official" business.   YES, there is an official report, prepared by the 911 Commission, which was commissioned, of course, by Congress to investigate mostly why the intelligence failures took place.  However, neither the Congress nor the President have taken it upon themselves to endorse the findings in the report, so there is no official version of the facts -- it's a report of finding by the 911 Commission, that's it.  There's no peer review, because the 911 Commission, as of yet, has no peer.  In addition, there's the mainstream media account of the facts, which closely resembles the facts reported in the 911 Commission report, and that mainstream media account has been peer-reviewed thousands upon thousands of times by ambitious, conflict-hungry journalists from across the world and who work for thousands upon thousands of separate ownership groups.  Journalists thrive on finding their own angle on a story, getting their first, carping about fellow journalists, and biggest of all, poking in holes in governments -- if you can uncover a government conspiracy, you are golden.  Just ask Woodward and Bernstein.  Have at it!  Morton devonshire 20:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: You've just ignored everything about the Hoffman/Paul book.  Morton devonshire 21:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Read his book.  Morton devonshire 21:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: What Hoffman and Paul suggest is a conspiracy, so don't shy away from that.  You and Ombudsman have a problem with the word, because you think it somehow taints the ideas.  The fundamental fact is that conspiracy is a very good way to describe these ideas, as they require, well, a conspiracy.  It's also a very common descriptor in English for these kinds of theories, so it helps people to understand what it is a person is talking about.  Please understand that these theories, even if you called them "Gospel Truth Theories", would still be highly controversial, and no amount of wordsmithing on your part will change that.  Ombudsman lost this battle already with the Wikipedia Admin machine.  Morton devonshire 06:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I think Bush is the President of the United States.  I'm sorry that you have a problem.  Morton devonshire 18:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I think what you mean to say is that Bush is a conspiracist, and not a conspiracy theorist.  Those that advance and write about theories claiming that he is a conspiracist are conspiracy theorists.  Morton devonshire 01:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Conspiracist is already taken, with a different meaning. Maybe Conspirator? or Bonesman... Tom Harrison Talk 02:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Going back to Morton's comment, Conspirator sounds like the right word (though I think most researchers in the 9/11 Truth Movement would regard Bush as being somewhat outside the main loop of the 9/11 conspiracy). Going a step further, back to EyesAllMine, I believe the idea is to express that "Bush and the government, the CIA etc" claim that 9/11 was a conspiracy of 19 Arab terrorists backed by Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, though an average U.S. citizen wouldn't think to refer to the government's contention as a conspiracy theory.  Kaimiddleton 07:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Further, not just any theory about a conspiracy is a conspiracy theory. Tom Harrison Talk 14:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: If it has the features of a conspiracy theory it's not unreasonable to point that out. I think the article title 9/11 conspiracy theories is fine, and the category "conspiracy theorists" as well. Whether or not Jim Hoffman belongs in that category I have not yet decided. Honestly, his inclusion or not isn't high on my list of things to work out. Tom Harrison Talk 18:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: You obviously have never read his book.  Morton devonshire 02:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Morton, I couldn't agree with you more.  MortonsSockpuppet 17:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Two strange categories 

message: :"In order to more easily research the many complex details of the September 11th attacks, Hoffman put together a collection of original hypertext pages of information. By developing a software tool for creating hierarchies of web pages, with references linking to source documents, he was able to quickly navigate to any of its many pages. Originally developed as a research tool, the system later evolved into the 911-Research website."
Does this mean anything other than that he created a website? Leaving it here for a week. If I don't get a response in 7 days I'm editing this pompous piece of bull.
--Mmx1 18:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't answer how it's unique. linking articles and citations isn't new. That's what wikipedia does. If you can name it, please do put it on the page, but as it reads from the site it indicates to me nothing more than that he put together a webpage connecting source documents. --Mmx1 01:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not about linking citations, it's about navigating through several hundred pages of info.  How about this: "Hoffman created a website design tool enabling easy navigation through large collections of pages assembled in hierarchical structures.  It uses a two-tiered system of navigation panels consisting of tabs and tables of contents.  Highlighting of the tab and the tab's table-of-contents' entry for the current page allows the user to see the page's location and context within the website." 24.4.180.197 17:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean vertical and horizontal navigation bars? Take a look up top. Wikipedia has highlighted horizontal tabs, too. If he has a patent on it, it's fair game for "unique". IIRC the javascript online reference has a similar layout. --Mmx1 18:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually vertical and horizontal navigation bars and linking articles and citations is not the issue - the issue is the ease of access to hundreds of pages of historical information for use in research of the event.  Looking up here at wikipedia, for example, I see no way to, in about 2 clicks, access every page on the site without doing a search.  You can do that with Hoffman's site. Bov 01:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Javascript reference. No horizontal bar, but you can get to every page in *one* click from the horizontal sidebar. --Mmx1 04:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The example you gives has frames, with all their disadvantages.  Hoffman's system doesn't use frames, although he has in the past, here: http://www.msri.org/about/sgp/jim/geom/minimal/index.html. Bov 17:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fancy Wording 

message: The site 911 Research says that there is no wesbite configured to the address.  Is it temporarily down?  If its permanently gone, we should remove or correct the links on the page.--Bill 14:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Website gone?

message: We seem to be having a revert war over these blogs. Well as they all were written by Jim (see http://911research.wtc7.net/re911/about.html) and the audio blog is an interview with him. To me they all seem on topic for this page. --Salix alba (talk) 22:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links section 

message: I have switched back some of the old "see also" parts.   In all the various pages I've edited I've regarded "see also" as a section for major further references regarding the subject at hand.  These references have stood on this page for a long time and there is a strong concensus for having them as far as I can see. This is a short article; there's no strong reason to edit down, I think. Kaimiddleton 17:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "See Also" section 

message: Now that I'm attaching myself to the changes that User:Levi P. is reverting -- apparently the content of the changes has zero value if they are not summarized -- let's talk about the content and why you think they must be reverted. bov 21:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The source cited calls Hoffman's beliefs "CT". It also refers to him as a researcher.  Leaving out one or the other misrepresents the source.  I reverted, perhaps hastily, the anon user because there was no edit summary, and the first edit I saw was the unexplained deletion of the sourced assertion that Hoffman is a CT.  Levi P. 21:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That source is one source that Hoffman is doing research.  There are many other sources that do not refer to him as CT which I can put there instead.  I don't see him as CT, others do, but there is no agreement in this area.  Those who wish him to be considered a CT will continue to insist that source stay there as the only source and then say he must be called CT because of that.  Circular logic which I disagree with. bov 22:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The source clearly stated he is a CT. Thus no problem.--Sloane 22:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a discussion of the reverts, not CT vs no CT -- please stop reverting.  If you have to have CT, fine, we can debate that.  But to revert the whole page for a single phrase is wrong.bov 23:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Does the salon article actually call Hoffman a Conspiracy theorist? He is first introduced in the article as a 9/11 researcher. The CT reference in the article is oblique at best, indeed the article actually calls the official story a conspiracy theory! --Salix alba (talk) 16:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Our article does not call him a conspiracy theorist. Tom Harrison Talk 16:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 50% of the time it does! Maybe its some strange quantum state? Current version is better. --Salix alba (talk) 17:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ! :-)) Tom Harrison Talk 17:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of reverts 

message: "Hoffman has been writing about the collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) and other 9/11 conspiracy theories."
That doesn't make sense at all. The collapse of the WTC is not a 9/11 conspiracy theory, it's just something that happened.--Sloane 20:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead

message: Kaimidletion you still haven't given one good reason why this article should repeat links. Why does this article have to break with the manual of style guideline? --Sloane 20:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see anyone saying anything about 'every single page.'  Only one page.  It's right here - Conspiracy theory.  How hard could it be?  Are you interested in making changes because of the principle, which you repeatedly refer to, or because you simply want to delete all links to or from Jim Hoffman? bov 00:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What are you guys babbling about? I don't even know this Berlet dude, why am I supposed to be editing his article? And why are you all of the sudden bringing up Conspiracy theory article? And I'm not deleting links, I'm just deleting the REPEATS of those links, as I try to in every article.--Sloane 00:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: But why is that necessary? You still haven't given one good reason. The core points are already linked. Articles normally never repeat links in the see also. --Sloane 17:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: See also

message: Jim Hoffman (born 1957) is a software engineer from Alameda, California who became notable for his coverage of the September 11, 2001 attacks, which he believes were carried out by the United States government. His work has been classified by various media under 9/11  conspiracy theories.
What's wrong with this? It clearly states his beliefs and notes that he has been described as a conspiracy theorist.
Current lead is bad, "who has become notable for his 9/11 research and/or conspiracy theories" makes little sense and is too ambiguous. Either it's "and" or it's "or" --Sloane 00:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I asked where you got his bio info and you haven't yet shown me - please state which article, which page, or provide a link.  I know that he is not 'from' Alameda, CA, so I know for a fact that part is wrong.  We need to have correct info.  Similarly, a ref to his specific positions - which you have also wrongly described in your wording - should not be in line 2 of the page. bov 19:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks.  I asked to see which reference Sloane was using when he added the info on Hoffman's dob and place of origin, which he hadn't specified up until now, just saying to go look in the refs, which would be a waste of my time when he knew where it was.  But the article does not say Hoffman is 'from' Alameda, it says he is 'in' Alameda, so the description as it is now is incorrect. bov 20:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead

message: Now that I'm having to be on here all the time to delete the quotes attempting to malign Hoffman, I guess it's time to start some pages on more 9/11 websites.  If I'm going to have to be constantly on here, I might as well make better use of my time and get started on the page about the top ranked website exposing the ommissions and cover-ups of the 9/11 attacks.  Or maybe things will die down and I can go back to other things.  Don't think about connecting any dots here and becoming a CT yourself; I'm just thinking aloud, nothing more. bov 02:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your feelings. We write, "Hoffman believes that, in an attempt to discredit skeptics of the official versions of the attacks, some aspects of the attacks may have been "engineered" to encourage acceptance of "flimsy" 9/11 conspiracy theories..." I find this a bit confusing, though no doubt that was not made to happen on purpose. Do we know that Hoffman really believes that? Maybe 'Hoffaman says that...' would be more neutral if there are doubts, or if he has been co-opted, as I think Victor Thorn said somewhere. Should the doubts expressed by other members of the 'movement' be included here? Or might they themselves be misinformation, or presented so as to appear that way? Hoffman has written that Victor Thorn is really Scott Makufka. Is it not then important to know who Jim Hoffman is, according to Victor Thorn? Or have I myself been taken in by disinformation? The whole section has a wheels-within-wheels element that may confuse the reader. Maybe we would do better to just pull it. Tom Harrison Talk 02:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So that claim of Hoffman's is what they say is disinformation? Or the change by Bov? Tom Harrison Talk 03:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, Victor Thorn and the WING TV site are recognized by most as belligerent attackers whose goal is to discredit the efforts of others, not to inform or to make academic critique.  So it's clear what Tom's agenda is to try to post links to that on here.  We've had this discussion before so obviously Tom knows what he's doing.  Tom is promoting people who call for activists to be "spit on" and write books about Satan.  How hard is it to figure out why Tom would post that on here?   Even 911blogger won't link to them, and that site links to every single site under the sun related to 9/11. bov 17:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely you do not expect people to believe I added the link on purpose to make it look like deliberate disinformation. Why would I do that? To discredit WingTV? You claim to have a negative view of them yourself. Is my adding the link to Joe Quinn's article at Signs of the Times supposed to give you cover so you can seem to oppose me by deleting links to WingTV? Why does one have anything to do with the other? Signs of the Times is run by the late Milton William Cooper's organization, unless I am mistaken. It's not clear why you would try to associate Cooper with Victor Thorn, or vice versa. Is there some connection? Tom Harrison Talk 03:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like you're trying to connect dots here, Tom. bov 21:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Next project

message: Hi, I found your page on Rfc, bio.  I'm not sure if you all have decided on calling Hoffman a CT or researcher.  I found this site and maybe it will help.  
Bye, pK--its Good to be the King 14:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: hi from pK

message: This works,
*Stuff here
and you can follow it with
*
and get another reference to the same citation.
This by itself
*
does not work, and just produces a blank footnote.
Tom Harrison Talk 23:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refs 

message: Why was the biography article on Don Paul bulldozed and shipped overseas (apparently to  be melted down at mirror sites), just like the rest of the evidence from the 9/11 crime scene?  Ombudsman 22:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was not bulldozed; Its sections were weakened with thermite, the links were pulled, and the remaining material was destroyed with pre-planted deletion votes. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Paul. Tom Harrison Talk 23:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But why was the article bulldozed?  Yes, the article appears to have been deliberately weakened, if not sabotaged, prior to the AfD nomination, but there was no reason at all for the bulldozing of the article and the covering up of Wikilinks to the evidence.  It seemed particularly odd that the article was decimated shortly after the release of the new 9/11 Guilt: The Proof Is In Your Hands DVD, produced by Don in collaboration with Hoffman, and the irrefutable acknowledgement of Don's social impact and athletic achievement by a veteran journalist.  Since proof of wrongful biography demolition has now been placed before the eyes of at least some of those editors who chose to bulldoze, perhaps said editors would please be kind enough to fix what they wrongfully demolished?  Ombudsman 20:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I was just following the instructions of my superiors in the Order. If you do not like the result, you could take it up on the suspiciously-named Wikipedia:Deletion review. Tom Harrison Talk 21:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or you might receive instructions from the Order (this chap, mebbe?) to restore the article properly, via deletion review?  It would go a long way to establishing that the editors who ignored the proof before their eyes have not simply been (over)staying the course.  Ombudsman 22:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Don Paul]]

message: In the lead paragraph is a cited fact about Hoffman which seems to be being removed because of a difference of opinion see this diff.
Since the role of a Wikipedia article is to report on cited facts in WP:RS and since that removal is being made without edit history, and is being made by the same editor, I feel that a consensus should be built for or against this citation. It is a clear citation, referenced accurately, and in a valid publication.  
The reference is as follows:
:
As you can see it is a full reference. Fiddle Faddle 07:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of whether it is a full reference or there is a difference of opinion, the vast majority of articles never have an article reference in the top paragraph and the obvious purpose of doing this here - unlike these many other articles on wikipedia - is to try to discredit Hoffman or find a reason to affix the "conspiracy theory" brand in the top paragraph.  It's transparent as are all the other efforts by Tom H, MONGO, AudeV etc to enforce the viewpoint that the CT's are bogus and should be made fun of and must be labelled as such. bov 19:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You do realise, I am sure, that you are using a wholly spurious argument here.  A reference in the lead is perfectly fine and perfectly normal.  The purpose is to cite the lead paragraph.  If Hoffman is discredited, so be it.  If he is validated by the reference, so be it.  The thing to do is to stop caring and to stop taking it so persoanlly.  But at least you are participating for a change in consensus building.  So, if you wish to reach a consensus, start developing one.  Pretty much everyone here works by consensus.  We do not have to agree with the consensus view, but we do have to abide by it. Fiddle Faddle 21:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of cited references 

message: Is this case active or can I close it?  --Ideogram 21:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh. I don't remember hearing about that mediation. If someone told me at the time, I have forgotten about it. I guess it is not active. Tom Harrison Talk 22:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll close it and you can leave a note on my talk page if it needs to be reopened.  --Ideogram 01:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation active? 

message: Hey, I was meant to be restarting my current 'wikibreak' today but since Bov contacted me, I thought I'd leave a few comments. I'm not going to engage in the debate any further, but I thought I'd present a view. Bear in mind that this is just from a 5/10 minute overview. My comments shouldn't be taken as being as well proven as those of you who have spent months looking at this page and the various souces!
* If there's any doubt that Hoffman is a conspiracy theorist, then we should reword the sentance in the intro to : Hoffman has published several websites presenting material he says documents the September 11, 2001 attacks. Many commentators such as x,y,z have labeled these " conspiracy theories".
* Apparently Hoffamn has directly contacted Wikipedia asking that he not be labeled a conspiracy theorist? There was a proposed policy once upon a time that people could get info removed about them that they disagreed with, but I think that wasn't passed? To any extent, I havn't actually seen any evidence of this contact?
* "This is just the sort of wackiness defenders of the Official Story harp on to show how gullible and incompetent we conspiracy theorists are supposed to be" - a quote from Hoffman which suggests he doesn't mind being labeled a consipracy theorist
* The article doesn't actually explain what Hoffman says happened! I think this should be a post-protection priority. The template would then be relevant if he agrees with the others on it; if not, then perhaps it could be removed, or edited to inlclude Hoffman's theories seperatly on it.
* Bear in mind that templates don't apply any agreement or paticular association between people. That the same template appears at the foot of Adolf Hitler and Angela Merkel does not mean that she's going to start goosestepping about and invading Poland.
Anyway, those are just a few thoughts. --Robdurbar 10:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Robdurbar, thanks for posting.  Hoffman hasn't asked not to be labelled as a conspiracy theorist that I am aware of, only that the template which includes NESARA conspiracy theory should not be on his bio page, as he literally has nothing to with that theory.  No 9/11 researcher I've ever met knows anything about this theory.  Hoffman does indeed mind being labelled as a conspiracy theorist and says that the Salon statement misrepresents him.  However he didn't write in to request removal of that label, rather the template which includes NESARA conspiracy theory.  Most of the others on the template also have nothing to do with NESARA conspiracy theory.  I think that regardless of what what the general implications are of a template, if someone with a biography page on wikipedia specifically sees a template as misrepresentative, they have the right to request its removal. bov 00:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Jim Hoffman rejects the label "conspiracy theorist". If anyone bothered to actually read his website(s) before making decisions about his page, they would know this. Source: http://911research.wtc7.net/re911/repudiations.html Coconuteire 02:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "The article doesn't actually explain what Hoffman says happened!"  Well, just how surprising could that be?  Editing of this article has been mired for far too long in nonsensical name calling]] (in psychology, name calling is synonymous with deliberate infliction of psychological trauma (i.e., brain insult).  It is time to put away the schoolyard scheming so that serious editing can take place.  Ombudsman 17:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Outside opinion

message: I'm starting a discussion on the issue of including the phrase "he says" in the introductory paragraph.  Please indicate what material you are referring to when you use that term since the use of the term "conspiracy theories" is already included.  Exactly what material is not a conspiracy theory but also does not document the attacks.  If you cannot show what part is disputable in terms of documenting the attacks but not being part of a conspiracy theory - since that's already accounted for - then I am removing it. bov 16:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: He says

message: from http://911research.wtc7.net/re911/repudiations.html
FACT: I do not accept the label of "conspiracy theorist", and consider it an inaccurate and derisive description of myself.
Wikipedia editors that patrol my biography page on Wikipedia.org have repeatedly tagged me with the label of "conspiracy theorist", most recently with the inclusion of a "9/11 conspiracy theories" template. My request that the template be removed because it falsely implies that I endorse such productions as 9/11: In Plane Site and 9/11: The Big Lie was met with silence. 
Wikipedia editors have used the following passage from an article in Salon.com to justify their labeling me a "conspiracy theorist". (See the discussion behind my biography page.)
    "Hoffman has disputed the no-crash theory concerning The Pentagon and in an interview for Salon, alleged ad hominen attacks on conspiracy theorists, stating, "This is just the sort of wackiness defenders of the Official Story harp on to show how gullible and incompetent we conspiracy theorists are supposed to be."
    The 9/11 deniers Salon.com. 
The quote may be literally accurate. However, it does not convey my tone of voice, which clearly indicated that I was using "we conspiracy theorists" facetiously.
Quite apart from twisted interpreations of words attributed to me, it is clear from a survey of my work that the application of the "conspiracy theorist" label to me has no factual basis. The vast majority of the material I have written for the websites WTC7.net, 911Research.wtc7.net, and 911Review.com, reports on well-documented facts of the attack and aftermath and critiques both official and alternative conspiracy theories of the attack. 
<end block of quoted text>
 
Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosie_O%27Donnell#9.2F11_-_7_World_Trade_Center
Rosie O Donnell believes building 7 was "imploded; by your argument she is a "conspiracy theorist" and should be catagorized as such.
Also your labling of Jim Hoffman as a conspiracy theorist is redundant as his page is under the catagory "Individuals challenging the official account of 9/11" which is a sub-catagory of "conspiracy theorists"
76.48.17.241 20:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes from the subject

message: The calls for citations seem pretty meaningless -- if one says that the site has cached many original news articles all one has to do is look at the site and see that yes, indeed it does have a lot of cached news articles.  Do we need the New York Times to tell us that news articles are cached there?  This is classic circular wikipedia reasoning to waste time for the sake of clogging a page with citation tags.
The Salon article that references Hoffman states, "Hoffman, who runs 9-11 Research and 9-11 Review, two enormous troves of attack-related documentation and analysis."  I don't want to repeat that reference since it's already in the article once. bov (talk) 18:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A web site CANNOT be used as a source that it contains what it says it does, and an offer to sell the video cannot be used as evidence of its provenance or content.  Repeat the reference, and I'll check to see whether it supports the statement. Your quote from salon does not support does not support the statements in the article. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote from Salon pretty clearly states exactly what is in the first paragraph.  It seems mainly that you dispute anything that isn't your own edit, regardless of the validity of the source. 152.131.10.133 (talk) 17:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  citations needed tags 

message: This article presents Hoffman as an opponent of the theory that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon without mentioning that this was his original view:
http://web.archive.org/web/20040213031301/911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/conclusions/no757impact.html
-----
No 757 Hit the Pentagon 
Evidence Precludes Flight 77 having Impacted the Pentagon
-----
While Hoffman has the right to change his mind like anyone else, a complete article which is supposed to be about Hoffman should state clearly something like "Hoffman was an early advocate of the idea that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, but subsequently changed his mind and began accusing people who held to his own previous view of being CIA agents."  That would be a more honest account of his development.  As it is, this article just misleads the reader into thinking that Hoffman was originally a critic of theories that something other than Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.  That is obviously not correct.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.86.226.21 (talk) 13:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, there is no evidence for Hoffman ever accusing anyone of being a "CIA agent", which is why that won't be being posted on this page.  Hoffman describes his position on the Pentagon .  His website also describes the harassment and intimidation he was subjected to for not supporting the "no plane" claims at the Pentagon -- . ScholarTruthJustice (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change of mind omitted 

message: Back to the "conspiracy theorist" debate again, in an effort to label Hoffman.  Note that world renowned conspiracist David Icke, who says that the WTC was demolished and claims that people in power are actually lizards, has no such label on his lead --
David Vaughan Icke (pronounced /aɪk/; born April 29, 1952) is a British writer and public speaker who has devoted himself since 1990 to researching "who and what is really controlling the world."[1] A former professional football player, reporter, television sports presenter, and spokesman for the Green Party, he is the author of 20 books explaining his views.
Icke argues that he has developed a moral and political worldview that combines New Age spiritualism with a passionate denunciation of what he sees as totalitarian trends in the modern world, a position that has been described as "New Age conspiracism."[2]
At the heart of Icke's theories is the view that the world is ruled by a secret group called the "Global Elite" or "Illuminati," which he has linked to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, an anti-Semitic hoax.[3][4] In 1999, he published The Biggest Secret, in which he wrote that the Illuminati are a race of reptilian humanoids known as the Babylonian Brotherhood, and that many prominent figures are reptilian, including George W. Bush, Queen Elizabeth II, Kris Kristofferson, and Boxcar Willie.[3][5]
According to Political Research Associates, Icke's speaking engagements can draw a substantial audience in Canada.[6] During an October 1999 speaking tour there, he received a standing ovation from students after a four-hour speech at the University of Toronto,[7] while his books were removed from the shelves of Indigo Books across Ontario after protests from the Canadian Jewish Congress.[8]
If Icke's lead can say "a position that has been described as . . . conspiracism," there's no reason that Hoffman's page must instead say he has conspiracy theory websites instead of websites that have been described as "conspiracy theory" sites.  76.102.212.231 (talk) 04:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Icke isn't exactly a 9/11 conspiracist; he's just a general conspiracist.  Hoffman is just a 9/11 conspiracist — his other activities are almost reasonable.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The term "conspiracy theorist" implies that someone would theorize about things that are either generally accepted as being conspiracies or things that the person would consider a priori (i.e. not as a result of the person's research) to be conspiracies. What makes "conspiracy theorist" a label is (a) the assumption that the existence of a conspiracy would be assumed a priori and (b) that the word "theorist", rather than "researcher" or "analyst" is being used.  Cs32en  14:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's strange to me is how obsessed certain editors are to maintain the "conspiracy theorist" label on Hoffman's page, while ignoring the numerous other people who they would logically need to apply the same label to for their work suggesting alternative theories of the 9/11 attack, such as Alexander Dewdney: "He has developed hypotheses which sharply disagree with the official version of the events surrounding the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks (see external links below)," David Shayler: "Shayler has since become controversial for his opinions regarding the September 11, 2001 attacks", Webster Tarpley: "Webster Griffin Tarpley is an author, journalist, lecturer, and critic of US foreign and domestic policy. Tarpley maintains that the September 11 attacks were engineered by a rogue network of the military industrial complex and intelligence agencies," David Ray Griffin: "More recently, Griffin has published a number of books on the subject of the September 11 attacks, suggesting that there was a conspiracy involving some elements of the United States government," etc.  What the special obsession with Hoffman and this label so that it has to be reposted within minutes of it being changed? Reader2010 (talk) 19:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think I (or the article) said he's a conspiracy theorist.  (Well, I guess it does, and I'm not sure I see adequate evidence for the category.)  However, he clearly published and maintains 9/11 conspiracy theory web sites.  We cannot necessarily assume he believes what he wrote there.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: But the pages of the above people don't say they are writing "conspiracy theory" books or make claims about "conspiracy theories".  Whether it's the websites or the books or the person, it's a label you are attaching to Hoffman as though none of the others are voicing what you consider conspiracy theories, but only he is.  That's in part why I am altering the phrase to qualify it to keep consistency among the bios.  When you fix all those other ones, come back and we can talk. Reader2010 (talk) 21:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we really need to tag the phrase "conspiracy theory websites" with the dozens of reliable sources which call them that?  They are conspiracy theory websites, and even other conspiritists agree.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

text: That looks like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.  However, this last change at least doesn't violate WP:WEASEL.  I've modified it, hopefully, to something we can all agree on.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conspiracy label again 

message: I'm pretty sure we all agree Meigs being a part of Entertainment Weekly has no relevance to this article at all, so I deleted it to make that sentence much less clunky.
Spotle99 (talk) 11:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jim Hoffman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5tmFOBanU?url=http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf to http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jim Hoffman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100103015053/http://visibility911.com/blog/?p=1351 to http://visibility911.com/blog/?p=1351
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified