Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories/Archive 13

message: Hey, i stumbled across this thing and i have no idea what it is. How bizarre? Anybody know what this is? http://www.alltheconspiracies.org --Need2feed 03:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is the same link you just added to half a dozen other pages, that I am going to go and remove. Please do not do that again. Tom Harrison Talk 03:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  All the Conspiracies 

message: New name: 9/11 conspiracy hoaxes
*Agree - --Cberlet 01:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This 'vote' is clear WP:POINT and WP:POV pushing and will not foster a productive atmosphere. It equivalent to proposing moving George W. Bush to Village idiot. It may be correct, but it would offend. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 03:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You want to change George Bush into a Village idiot. I agree. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 03:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I want you to change it.  I'll vote for it if you propose it.  Knock yourself out. That american expression might be contrued as violent.  As my wife would say: Fill your boots.   --Tbeatty 03:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: * Comment All of the anti-conspiracy skeptics are behaving very badly with this joke vote.  If one takes these comments seriously, then it appears that the "agree" voters are unable to edit this article neutrally.  I don't believe that, but it seems to me that the endless pro- and anti-conspiracy debates have worn nerves thin to the point that the skeptics would vote to change the title to one in clear violation of NPOV.  (Do not get me wrong: the overwhelming evidence is that the various poorly-defined conspiracy theories are false.  Nonetheless, at this early date, it is better to report on them as theories and certainly not as hoaxes.) Phiwum 13:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Did you actually look to see who was !voting how? This is a broad personal attack that has no merit in regards to this discussion, and should be retracted. Crockspot 20:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The comment was made to those who put it up, and to the style in which they did it. I'm sorry that some might felt offended, I've added a disclaimer, and I agree that I made a mistake making such a broad accusation.SalvNaut 21:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: *Let's not open up the whole "alternative theories" can of worms again.--Rosicrucian 01:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote on name change as proposed by 24.35.85.32

message: Could someone please restate the complaint(s) about this articles neutrality? At this point, there may still be a few odds and ends, but I don't think there's a general lack of neutrality left. The most constructive approach would be to list the first three sentences that seem POV, we can then move on to the next three, and so on. I think the solution will be pretty straightforward in most cases.--Thomas Basboll 12:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For #3: . If you need more, google is your friend. Weregerbil 16:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. It looks like two and three are going to go out in the edit that has been proposed above. I agree with you on 1.--Thomas Basboll 21:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Neat. There's also a slight concern I have about the article. This is just a general thing to keep in mind when people are editing. The current format seems to be "This group says X. However, Y group says Z..." and then is followed by some explanation quote from group Y. The problem is, it's unduly biasing group Y's claim because they're the only ones who have direct argumentation (the conspiracy theoriest usually just gets a cite.) This gives the impression that group Y has the valid argument, because they're statements are basically unrebutted (so it seems as if their logic stands.) Sections with such statements are: World Trade Center collapse as controlled demolition (Conspiracy theoriests get a 3 word quote, refuting group gets a huge block of text), Allegations of cover-up, Claims that some of the hijackers are still alive, Claims related to Jews and Israel, Media reaction, and Criticism. Keep in mind that not all follow the scheme I listed above, but it's a similar setup (sometimes with viewpoints instead of groups, etc.) .V. 03:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality dispute 

message: Keep in mind that this article is not about 9/11 but about (roughly speaking) a system of beliefs about 9/11. We need to represent the major components of that system. Among 9/11 CTists there are of course vague references to "mainstream" accounts of 9/11, but they mean something very specific by "official account". It is the meaning of that concept in the 9/11 CT belief system that we have to accurately describe, not the mainstream account itself. Though the CT version of the account, i.e., "the official account", is a pretty fair representation of mainstream views, it has a different focus and is much more committed to certain details. Consider some differences between "the mainstream account" and "the official account". The mainstream account doesn't really have an opinion about Building 7, but the official account has a working hypothesis. (That is, building seven isn't part of the mainstream narrative, even though there is an official investigation about it.) The mainstream account doesn't include "puffs of smoke" coming out the side of the building; but the official account explains them as jets of compressed air pushing debris out the windows. The mainstream account doesn't include the war games, but the official account says they actually speeded the military response to the attacks. It is because CTists ask questions that the mainstream media do not that their version of what "officially" happened differs from what people generally believe happened. That's why I think we should go back to calling that section "the official account".--Thomas Basboll 23:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Mainstream account" is more accurate, and allows us to mention all the other mainstream sources that agree with the government.  These tend to be ignored by conspiracy theorists.  The government is part of the mainstream account, but not the only component.  --Aude (talk) 00:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More accurate of what? The whole point is that this section should not represent the mainstream account but, as it were, the conspiracy theorists' account of the mainstream account. The CTists do not try to refute just what people, in the main, believe; they try to show inconsistencies in what, precisely, official sources say. This needs to accurately identify the real target of the CT critque. "Mainstream" is therefore less accurate.--Thomas Basboll 07:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: AudeVivere suggested that "mainstream" is more broad than "official", while Thomas has shown that parts of "official account" do not find their way into "mainstream". The only reasonable conclusion is that those are different and none overlaps the other. So using any term as a substitution of the other is considerably less accurate. But then, CTiers argue with official reports, goverment's line of explanation (air defense, no foreknowledge, etc.. btw: foreknowledge has found its way into mainstream as of now). CTiers rarely take sole media speculations and argue with them. Official account is in most cases more appropriate in this article. SalvNaut 12:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Glad to have made your day but the motive for page after page of discussion pages can not be 100% to satisfy the ego's of the writers somebody somewhere must be doing this at least partially for the readers sake. But to the point do you agree or not with the main point I was trying to make? (Note to all editors:  GET STURDY CHAIRS) 69.114.117.103 18:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Mainstream" vs. "official" 

message: This method seems to be working. Please list the first three (reading from the top of the article) reasons that this article's neutrality is currently disputed. We can then fix them, and move on to the next three. Please identify specific sentences that lack NPOV.--Thomas Basboll 23:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More neutrality problems?