Talk:Scholars for 9/11 Truth

message: No, no, and no. If you owned a publishing company and had an entry about your publishing company in your encyclopedia that gave you, the publisher, glowing praise would that be ethical? No it would not. Is it kosher? No it is not. Would I write an article about myself? No I would not.
Who created this entry and why? If the group needs a web-page to announce to the world that they exist I suggest Yahoo/Geocities. Not here! Wjbean
: The article has survived four rounds of proposed deletion; it's not going anywhere.  If you detect problems of bias in the article, please either correct them or discuss them individually on this talk page. Middenface 09:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Self Advertizing and Ethics

message: How do you fix that tag? SkeenaR 04:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal

message: For the record, let me say that I am in favor of deleting this article. Should the AfD fail, I would like to recommend a massive rewrite of the entire article, a complete overhaul, beginning with the section that lists everyone involved with the project. Isopropyl 21:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD 

message: I am questioning the addition of every work ever published by this group. Remember, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Consider parallels at SCO-Linux; there is no need to list every contribution of a particular group to a debate. Isopropyl 23:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes Striver, You added too much. Also under works You added commentaries from other sources, which is clearly not their work. Should be reverted back to a list of links to articles.  A human 02:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: When will something happen with this?  We want to have the page describe the scholars group, but we don't need to know what happened on each month.  I don't want to be the one to just delete that section because obviously Striver put effort into it. Bov 22:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I completely agree the month by month view is annoying, I will work to try to clean it up. H0riz0n 03:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of (date) works 

message: For those of us who are now just discovering this topic and have been closed out from putting in our two cents...
*Strong Keep -- This group is a fast growing movement across university campuses. The group is actively conducting talks on the subject, and petitioning for peer-review research into the matter. Unfortunately, we are all still to close to the issue. The 911 issue will be with all thoses that experienced it forever and it is still too early to exactly say what the final results of the 911 Challenge Movement will be. So we shouldn’t be hasty with any delete keys. H0riz0n 05:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion Question Cont..

message: ST911 is a group of researchers -- if we link to every external site by or about each of these researchers we will be linking to hundreds of websites.  We already have a page specifically for Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11, where researchers can each have links to their own page and information.  This page is about the group, not each of the individuals within the group, which is what Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 is about.  Steven E. Jones and Morgan Reynolds each have their own pages already. Bov 00:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: In that lightMmx1, perhaps you would delete the blatant advertising and POV in the "Criticism of Scholars For 9/11 Truth" Section? I did a fine job with npov and you put it back to those horrible sites and references? These are the things that this organization does not want a part of. Each of those links is to an advertising site that has little to do with the organization. Why not keep this as a wikified page instead of a propaganda page. I see you liked that I pulled the superfluous medals from the honorable. I think I missed a couple more. You going to pull them or me? Tell me how to comment the edits so it shows what I am doing on an edit page? 911 Eyewitness 20:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: COMMENT

message: There are major problems in POV with this article in the section on criticism. There are also major problems that the "Scholars for 911 Truth" are going with anything other than controlled demolition in NYC. Study by members and others in areas outside that continue but it is not conclusive enough for their official endorsement. For you to have this absolute fabrication is merely advertising for the sites that they link to. I am going to delete that section if a rewrite is not done. 911 Eyewitness 19:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Critique Section

message: *www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/260306Scholars.htm --Striver 02:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: news

message: It is still too early to bring this article back to AfD, since any such effort will be clouded by editors who would see such an action (rightly) as disruptive and thus vote without reference to the merit, or lack of merit, of the article.  However, the serious questions raised in both AfDs remain, and they are compounded by the important isues raised above.  This is a strong candidate and deletion and I suggest that this be brought back to AfD in June or July. Eusebeus 10:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why is it a strong candidate for deletion? Which of the criterias for deletion does this article meet? EyesAllMine 17:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal for Returning to AfD

message: As a reflective exercise, I recommend the disputants in this debate juxtapose the "Scholars for..." page with the "PNAC" page . In doing so myself, I've noticed two communities that have the scent of diametric opposition to each other, even though they address what appear to be entirely different topical matters. Despite their obvious differences, making the content of the "Scholars ..." page isomorphic in structure and organization with the "PNAC" page may resolve the underlying disputes about bias on the "Scholars..." page. It has been my humble observation that absolute rules are often bent toward particular ends, meaning Wikipedia's NPOV policies which make for good theoretical guidelines appear to be falling short in bringing about actual consensus of opinion on this particular matter. Relative isomorphism, which in this case implicitly accepts the pervasive nature of biased reporting, would likely provide the most even-handed compromise.--Zegna 22:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The articles may be comparable, but the organizations are not.  PNAC is a real organization with a real budget and real notability in the mainstream media.  Scholars is a living-room organization with no notability in the mainstream press, and deserves to be Afd'd.  Morton devonshire 02:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unlike S9/11T, PNAC has achieved real goals in the real world. They have achieved the "New Pearl Harbor" they spoke of needing in "Rebuilding America's Defenses". TruthSeeker1234 22:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compare "Scholars..." to "PNAC" 

message: It's about an event that this group has announced and is sponsoring, but we don't have enough information about it to require splitting from this article.  It should be turned into a section in here. Night Gyr 18:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge from [[The National 9/11 Debate]] 

message: The section offers no reasonthis student was notable - though it clearly attempts to imply- but not say- he was killed for his membership (i clearly am deeply skeptical, why kill a lowly student instead of say a prof?).  I think this section merits deletion unless someone can write a NPOV explanation of why this kid is notable.216.207.246.230 20:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable Former Members

message: The placement of a  is inappropriate. WP:PROD states  should only be used for "uncontroversial deletion candidates." Since this article recently went through an AfD without consensus, it can't qualify as an "uncontroversial deletion candidate." I'm removing the tag. --mtz206 (talk) 00:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, someone just beat me to it. --mtz206 (talk) 00:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Deletion 

message: Most of what this article said was unverifiable by Wikipedia standards (See WP:RS), relying completely on the Scholars website for support.  Morton devonshire 00:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Morton devonshire: You have in effect created a straw-man AfD here. You've deleted the seemingly pertinent content and then summarily filed an AfD. I thought Wikipedia was about consensus. I am trying my best to assume good faith here. I would encourage all those taking part in the AfD to review the article history. Dick Clark 02:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So did you have a reason for doing this? Rkrichbaum 14:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: All of that stuff was eliminated because it's not verifiable, except with reference to the Scholars web site, which is not permitted by Wikipedia rules.  The stuff comes out.  Morton devonshire 06:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:V states "Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as:" (and then lists several provisions).  I know you've read that section, so the best take I can make for your actions is that you're interpreting it in an aggressively narrow way.  Perhaps some of the removals might have been warranted, but certainly not all of them. Шизомби 17:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: This article and its citations do not fall under any of the exceptions -- it's blog-based, and therefore unreliable.  Morton devonshire 17:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I dont think members of organizations have to verified outside of the organizations webpage. Considering that would call for removing almost all member associations on every wiki page including Bush's link to Skull and Bones etc. I am particularly worried about the wholesale removal of information before this article was placed for deletion as well. It seems in bad faith. --Zer0faults 14:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I deleted unverifiable information -- blogs are not reliable sources according to Wikipedia.  Somebody else Afd'd it.  Morton devonshire 17:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are flat out incorrect in stating that blogs are never allowed as sources. As I noted on your talk page, "The Reliable Sources guideline (not a policy) states the following: Personal websites and blogs should not be used as secondary sources. That is, they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website. Since the owner of this website is the subject of the article, even blog-like portions are acceptable for this and only this article....<snip>" Dick Clark 18:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The worst part is this information was even attempted to be verified just removed. A quick google search shows James H. Fetzer admits to being a member with 2 other people listed in the original article, Steven Jones and David Ray Griffin. I dont think we will find a better source for Fetzer's involvement, other then himself. --Zer0faults 14:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:AGF  I did check the sources, and found them to be other blogs and opinion pieces, lacking in the objective journalistic standards required by Wikipedia.  Morton devonshire 18:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the group itself, and Metzer say he is part of the group, I think it can be factually stated that he is. If the opinion piece is written by himself, or the articles appear in a newspaper or its his own homepage, I think that meets the standard. I think they know what group they do or do not belong in. --Zer0faults 19:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That covers 3 people.  The rest is apparent puffery.  Morton devonshire 19:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unverifiable according to Wikipedia standards

message: This link, titled 'Wikipedia: What it Doesn't Say', was removed from the article, and rightly so, but it may be of some interest to editors. I'll leave it here so it doesn't go even though we're removing it from the article. Cheers, THE KING 19:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia: What it doesn't say 

message: I'm not sure a fact tag is needed for Andreas von Bülow's membership.  I think it's sufficient under the section of WP:V I quoted above in Talk:Scholars for 9/11 Truth#Unverifiable according to Wikipedia standards that the organization claims him as a member.  Given the plausibility that he would be a member of such an organization in light of what we know about Bülow, and the absence of any denial that he is a member by anyone (except some wikipedians), I think WP:V has to have its way. Шизомби 20:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like you, I would accept that source. I was just noting that the previous citation offered didn't support the claim, and thus led to the deletion of the subject's name, etc. I would expect that this discussion among interested editors would help resolve that one way or the other. Dick Clark 20:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I figured that was why it was put there.  As I said, I don't think it is deserved.  I think unreasonable criteria are being placed on the article by people who don't like it.  I don't really care one way or the other about the group itself, about which I don't know much.  I just don't care to see WP's guidelines and policies being ignored in a POV way.  Neither the pro- nor the anti-Scholars for 9/11 Truth POV warriors should have the upper hand, ideally. Шизомби 20:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Same this is for all of them, some are being removed even though I have provided 2 sources and a homepage. It seems someone just wants the list to appear small. --Zer0faults 20:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can find reliable sources, include whoever you want.  Otherwise, it's just puffery.  Morton devonshire 23:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please follow the concensus of the community. People do not need to verify through secondary sources what groups they are members of, when both the group and the person state it. First hand account negates need for seconday source. --Zer0faults 00:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: You and DickClarkMises do not constitute consensus.  Morton devonshire 00:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You did not even dispute the idea that the user and the organization both state they are members, then no secondary source is needed. --Zer0faults 00:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the user says so, it's acceptable, but that only accounts for 3 people.  The rest is unverifiable by Wiki standards.  Bye now!  Morton devonshire 00:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would direct interested parties to a discussion of Wikipedia policies with regards to this article at Morton devonshire's talk page. I suppose this discussion should be moved to this talk page... Dick Clark 18:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Membership

message: For those interested, an RfC has been filed regarding User:Zer0faults at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Zer0faults. Any comments would be appreciated. -- Mr. Tibbs 06:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the heads up.  I commented.  Morton DevonshireYo 01:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Zer0faults]] 

message: this is a joke. James Fetzer is the 9/11 truth movement. You deny him the right to update it. If you had a bio of me and it was wrong, and I could not update it then wikipedia has a real problem. The problem with wikipedia is it thinks it can make a difference throwing up the same disinformation that is distributed on a daily basis by main stream media or the us government.
James Fetzer Video explaining how wikipedia denied him access to update his 9/11 truth movment.
http://www.blogtext.org/andy/article/5867.html
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 166.61.194.2 (talk • contribs) 16:02, July 17, 2006  (UTC)
Would one way of dealing with this dispute be to add the fact the Scholars for 9/11 truth is critical of wikipedia to the summary of the organisation?  They feature this fairly prominently on their website (http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ArticlesWikipedia.html) and it could be a neat way of making clear to readers the dispute about this page? - jon_m (Talk) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.127.18.193 (talk • contribs) 19:18, July 17, 2006  (UTC)
::I would like to know why the link to the critique of wikipedia gets removed again and again - with no discussion on the talk page. Please explain EyesAllMine 23:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If a section on that organization's critism of Wikipedia were added, then the link could be added as a reference.  Otherwise, it doesn't deserve a link (IMHO).  (Also, this section is a joke.  The founder doesn't get veto power over an article.)  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 00:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Amplifying — if critism of Wikipedia were a major tenent of the organization, then such a section should be created.  Otherwise, not, and the link shouldn't be there. — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 00:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Interesting theory, Mr Devonshire... How did Fetzer manage to make up the 100 or so names on this list? (Scholars for Truth Membership) Self-Described Seabhcán 22:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I could find 100 names of scholars who are unlikely to run google checks for their name.  I don't theink anyone of us would want to cast doubt on Mr. Fetzer's ability to do likewisem although I'm not suggesting he actually did.  Personally, I think it's a real group of non-scholars.  (And I'm Dr. Rubin, if you care to address me in a more formal manner.)  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 23:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Non-scholars"? What are you basing that on, Dr.? Self-Described Seabhcán 23:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The lack of scholarly activity on the site — badly written and clearly false statements in discussions, etc. — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 23:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about Volume 23 of "Research in Political Economy", published by Elsevier and also their own "Journal of 911 studies". For an organisation which is less than 6 months old, thats pretty good going. Self-Described Seabhcán 00:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently, we have wildly divergent opinions of the definition of "scholarly" work.  Morton devonshire 00:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, some people seem to only accept work as 'scholarly' if they agree with the conclusions. Self-Described Seabhcán 00:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I have to agree with Dr. Rubin's reason for reverting your revert. Perhaps the links home should be at Criticism of Wikipedia?Self-Described Seabhcán 09:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok? But it is this article that is critiziced, not all of Wikipedia. How about noting then that the group itself has a different oppinion about this article and claims that is is faulty, and then reference it with the link EyesAllMine 13:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That might fall foul of the "self-reference" rules in wikipedia. How about we put a "This article has been mentioned in the media" notice on the top of the talk page, with the link? Self-Described Seabhcán 13:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just for the record - it is this link were talking about http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ArticlesWikipedia.html "what Wikiepdia doesnt say about S9/11T" by James Fetzer. Is there a link to the self-reference policy? - I would love to read itEyesAllMine 13:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm having some trouble finding it, it was some time ago that I read it. The basic idea was that because Wikipedia content is mirrored and forked all over the place, and will eventually be issued as a printed encyclopedia, you should avoid refering to wikipedia or saying things like "In this wikipedia article" or "on this website". There was even a movement a while back to rename "External links", but that didn't get very far. (While I was searching for this policy, I came across the article self reference, which has in the "See also" section: Self reference. I thought that was funny :-) Self-Described Seabhcán 14:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  :) - So what is the argument for leaving this link out of the article? EyesAllMine 19:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objection. But others seem to. Self-Described Seabhcán 19:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  a joke 

message: Wikipedia is not webspace. The group's founder can write whatever he wants on his own webspace but his view is not appropriate for this article under WP:AUTO as it is not a neutral description. --Mmx1 04:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What wikipedia is NOT [[WP:NOT]] 

message: I'm not saying that all of his edits around 06:23, 07 August 2006 are necessarily bad.  The last one was quite definitely properly reverted by Mmx1, but they're all related, so I reverted all of them.  A criticism section is quite appropriate, if properly sourced, but individual criticism's must be properly sourced.  (It should be noted that I don't believe any of them are scholars in an appropriate field, but I'm going to try not to let that get into my edits.)  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 16:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversions of [[User:Francespeabody|Francespeabody]]'s edits 

message: Things REALLY need to be properly cited with this section. rootology (T) 06:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Going through and changing all the links top to bottom to be properly set in external links for reading/analysis. Too many inline links. rootology (T) 06:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, proper citation format is in place for all the inline links in the entire article now, I cut out bad/duplicate links, and add some material that meets WP:V and WP:RS that I found. rootology (T) 07:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Many of the references you added about individual members of the group are duplicates, or are attached to the wrong person.  I've cleaned up a couple duplicates (and added some references to the criticism section where you placed a  tag, but I've tried to avoid making substantive changes to the article.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 17:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I just want to make sure that everything comes up absolutely NPOV in the end with cites for anything that could be called into question from sites that meet WP:RS and WP:EL. rootology (T) 17:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  added references section/clean up 

message: I'm going to remove this "numerical breakdown" because it appears to be made up out of whole cloth by someone. A twenty second look at the Who Are We part of their site reveals at least 30+ engineers, not "two". rootology (T) 16:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Readded last sentence, which as written was horribly POV, and needs to be actually cited or else it wll have to go soon. rootology (T) 16:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section 

message: The article is much cleaner now and a lot closer at least to being NPOV. All it needs is proper citation for the Conclusion and Criticism sections. rootology (T) 20:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Much cleaner 

message: I will be offline and have to go right now, but yeah, the POV chunks that mxmx1 deleted were accurate. Could someone readd the removed criticism section? Yes it's unsourced but I wasn't even planning on removing unsourced bits myself for several weeks (if at all) to give people time to collect citations. rootology (T) 02:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Watch the personal attacks --Mmx1 02:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: <I>"Are you saying that unfinished work should remain "ONLINE" until someone else does the work for you?"</i> ...no, I asked to make sure that the POV stuff is kept off, because per WP:NPOV they don't belong in the article in the form they were in when they went up from your edit. And also, please chill out a little bit and watch the personal attacks? I'd love to cram the article full of sorts of stuff, but I'm not, and I won't, and if I catch POV stuff shoved in--pro-Bush, pro-Left, pro-Government, pro-Feltzer, etc., I'll take it out if no one beats me to it first. Wikipedia is not and shall not be pro-American, or pro-this or pro-that. It's pro-WP:V, pro-WP:RS, and pro-WP:NPOV. Everything else is irrelevant. rootology (T) 04:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The last batch of edits 

message: This here is the version of the article I rv'd back to, my last edit from yesterday that had sat peacefully until this began tonight. rootology (T) 04:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Such as? Everything is factual RS that I see.  rootology (T) 22:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, look at the breadth of places they've been mentioned--they are RS now in and of themselves, clearly exist, and are mentioned/talked about by CNN, Fox News, one of the major newspapers covering Canada, a variety of other foreign and domestic sources... there is no good NPOV reason to merge them. rootology (T) 22:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My RV 

message: Just so everyone knows where people are coming from. I don't have the patience to involve myself in the minutiae of who said what, particularly in the face of wholesale edits such as that exhibited here - and I applaud Rootology's hard work in bringing this to NPOV. Moreover, I am not particularly interested in which way this article slants and am willing to let the interested parties debate it among themselves. However, as an encyclopedia writer, I am aware that there are strict boundaries on what is acceptable and will enforce those boundaries against POV-pushing by involved parties that stamps all over the compromised, NPOV content that many people have worked hard to tweak and implement. The policy of WP:NPOV expressly forbids presenting a single POV masquerading as content, and replacing the body of this article with 13 paragraphs as a "citation" is a lie. A footnote is a citation. A 13-paragraph essay is plagarism.--Mmx1 04:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Motivations

message: "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" should at best be merged with  the primary 9/11 conspiracy theories.  Too many liberties are being taken in the this article to render it verifiable.--Scribner 18:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Such as? Everything is factual RS that I see.  rootology (T) 22:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, look at the breadth of places they've been mentioned--they are RS now in and of themselves, clearly exist, and are mentioned/talked about by CNN, Fox News, one of the major newspapers covering Canada, a variety of other foreign and domestic sources... there is no good NPOV reason to merge them. rootology (T) 22:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Self-published op-ed

message: As I've said before, the "External link" at Wikipedia: What it Doesn't Say by James H. Fetzer should be included ONLY in a section of the article, rather than as a self-reference.  As a stand-alone external link, it is an inappropriate self reference.  A possible draft sentence to be included in the body of the article.
The founder of Scholars objects to the content of this article in Wikipedia: What it Doesn't Say by James H. Fetzer.
— Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 17:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the good edit. :) rootology (T) 17:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-reference 

message: Uh, this would be amazingly bad, and I advise you to not do any such thing based on criticism sections being removed. I was one of the people that removed many of the links, as they simply, flat out, did not meet WP:EL or WP:RS. A mass reversion of that magnitude/age would be a tremendously bad idea and would be reverted immediately if it was an RV. You can bring back an old version of the Criticism section, as long as any sources meet WP:RS and WP:V. Unfortunately, if the criticisms section cannot be sourced, it cannot exist forever--when I removed a link there myself I left a  tag, with the attention of removing unsourced after several weeks, to give people time to source them. Unfortunately, they weren't, and others began removing them from the criticisms section. This is all valid and per policy, for something to be included the burden of proof is on the inclusionists. NPOV doesn't play a role--NPOV doesn't mean there has to be a criticism section if it can't be sourced. rootology (T) 16:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All that's needed for an assertion that SOME critise the organization is a link to websites with such critism, WP:RS or not.  A link was provided, and I don't know when it was removed.  I'll reinsert it when I locate it.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk)  16:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why does it not need to meet WP:RS or WP:EL? Can you source what policy says that criticism don't need to meet a core policy? rootology (T) 16:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  (Why didn't the ~~~~'s expand, anyway....)  I gave a primary source (meeting WP:EL) for both assertions in the criticism section.  Secondary sources of criticism obviously exist; do they need to be cited?  (For what it's worth, the "Who are we?" page doesn't list any structural engineers among the full members, asserted might be changed back to "noted", after all.) — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 17:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: There's no secondary source that Problem-reaction-solution is used.  Period.  If you want to claim there's no secondary source for Scholars for 9/11 Truth, then we could delete this article too.  If you want someone to believe that there are no secondary sources that there is criticism of this organization, you'll have a hard sell.  The details of the secondary sources are not relevant, so.... — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 18:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arthur Rubin, revert to early Augst?! 

message: It's... ugly. Maybe just stick with the easier to work with list? rootology (T) 18:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: just trying to help... deleted if its un-improvable... --Striver 18:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i know links are to be mminimised...but in order to fully represent membership, a link to http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhoAreWe.html would look better and provide greater accuracy. Mablespam 04:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table 

message: I added the  tag, because I don't think anything other than the first sentence is directly supported by the sources, and thus the section may consititute WP:OR.  (I may fix the tag, later.)  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 16:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hypothesis 

message: --Striver 17:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Debate

message: Feds challenge 9/11 conspiracies --Striver 16:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i just e-mailed Mr Fetzer, asking him to create a picture galery so we can have pictures on their members. --Striver 18:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NITS