Talk:7 World Trade Center/archive5

message: From the Wikipedia entry for Larry Silverstein( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Silverstein#September_11.2C_2001_attacks) ...
"7 World Trade Center is said to have caught fire when debris fell from the North Tower. The building collapsed shortly after 5 p.m. -- 8 hours after the attack."
I have read numerous timelines (including CNN's archived on 12Sep2001) that said "reports of fires in WTC7" occurred around 70 minutes before it collapsed, i.e. 6+ hours AFTER the North and South towers collapsed... Kinda strange for it to not catch fire until so long a time it got hit by "debris" isn't it? :-\
Okay, some information re. the timing and INTENSITY of the WTC7 fires can be found here, in the FEMA report (2002) with highlights...
http://killtown.911review.org/wtc7/archive/fema_403.html#5.5.3  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.149.190.31 (talk • contribs) .
:Just to clear up: The FEMA report says that firefighters checking the damage observed fires "fairly early on".  No doubt there was a lot of confusion immediately after the attack, so there probably is a CNN page out there somewhere saying that there were reports of fires 70 minutes before the collapse.  If it says that the reports of fires 70 minutes before the collapse were the first reports of fires, then it's wrong.  As the FEMA report notes, there was news coverage of smoke emanating from WTC 7 at 1:30 PM.  Which probably means the building had begun burning well before then, and in the chaos nobody noticed until there was enough smoke that somebody had to notice. --Mr. Billion 08:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  When exactly did WTC7 catch fire? 

message: Somebody please add this old picture of WTC 7 pre-9/11. The website is here-
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/06/wtc-7.html
:I'm not sure we can argue fair use, especially since the blog doesn't indicate a source or say who's photo that is.  It would be best to try and find something that can be used without strings attached.  My best suggestion is to see if the Skyscraper Museum, New York Historical Society, or other such organization has something.  If they do, try and clear the rights with them or whoever is the copyright holder.  I may be willing to take it up with them.  Though, it would be best to try that, in conjunction with bringing this article up to featured status. --Aude (talk contribs) 16:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Picture

message: The same FEMA report quote appears twice, with two dates (2002, 2004).  This needs cleanup and verification.
:I think it part of the "history" of the investigation, so it provides a chronological order of what has been learned over time.--MONGO 18:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Collapse

message: If unsourced opinions from NIST, not substantiated with publications have their place in the collapse section, then I'm sure that opinion of two demolition experts, and structural engineer form Swiss university have their too. Sentences I include are very NPOV and I see no reason why you MONGO would like to remove them. You have to give arguments.--SalvNaut 19:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems to be a valid argument and matter of relevance to the article. Where are the unsourced NIST statements? Tyrenius 01:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinions from structural engineers 

message: Unless someone is accusing them of fabricating the photograph, it's not clear to me why they are not a suitable source. However, I have substituted globalresearch.ca. They identify themselves as "an independent research and media group of writers, scholars and activists. It is a registered non profit organization in the province of Quebec, Canada...Numerous universities, libraries and research institutions have established a link to Global Research on their respective web sites. Global Research is classified by Alexa (the web-ranking organization), as The Number One Globalization Site.  Global Research has about 20,000 unique visitors per day. Global Research has received for four years in succession, the Goodwriters Democratic Media Award, classified among the best 80 alternative news sites." Please do not delete this source without explaining your justification in this space. Thank you. Ribonucleic 20:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that Steven E. Jones specifically mentions Jim Hoffman at the 9/11 + The Neo-Con Agenda Symposium, in particular the references he found at Hoffman's WTC7.net website, as the inspiration for more seriously investigating the evident controlled demolition of WTC 7, the Wiki should not pretend the site is not noteworthy enough to mention in the 7 World Trade Center article.  Ombudsman 20:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pray tell, what makes you so adamant about suppression of WTC7.net?  The website is clearly noteworthy, as the foremost repository for information about the building and what brought it down.  How and why do you assume that censorship of this sort should be upheld?  Your contention seems eerily like that of the 9/11 omission commission, which totally avoided any and all reference, aside from a footnote, relating to the destruction and coverup of WTC 7 evidence.  While you are at it, if you have a moment, could you please explain why you seem to think so much like the omission commission?  What is it about your beliefs, with regard to the evidence presented by Don Paul and Jim Hoffman at WTC7.net, that leads you to conclude that discussion of restoring the link should also be suppressed?  Ombudsman 17:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: *As I noted above, this has been discussed at length before. Please see the archives of this talk page, which are linked at the top of the page, for the relevant discussions. There is no need to rehash the debate, as nothing of significance with relation to the debate has changed in regards to wtc7.net. --Durin 22:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yes, it's been discussed, but certainly never resolved: nothing resembling a consensus has ever been reached.  In my view, some of the reasons given for excluding wtc7.net from the external links were nothing short of ludicrous - like the unsupported charge that some of the pictures on that site might be under copyright, and the idea that Wikipedia's copyright policies extend to anything any article links to.  --Hyperbole 22:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are several valid reasons for it's exclusion, the discussion can be found in the archives. I think you took part in them. There was a consensus and nothings changed since. Remember, consensus doesn't mean unanimity. Otherwise we'd be paralyzed. Rx StrangeLove 23:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was nothing even resembling a consensus; if memory serves, there were about six users who voiced opposition to including wtc7.net and about five who felt the site should be included.  I continue to believe that, while WP:RS prohibits using wtc7.net as a source, WP:EL requires that it, or another notable site of its POV, be included in the external links.  --Hyperbole 00:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: *Whether consensus existed in one direction or another is actually irrelevant; wtc7.net as a resource for Wikpiedia violates a number of our standards. Policy can and does on occasion trump consensus. For example, if consensus said we should violate copyrights left and right, policy must win over to protect us against lawsuits. The failure of wtc7.net to meet our standards was discussed at length and can be reviewed in the archives. A number of administrators agreed with the position. I'm sorry you take issue with it. Since this already went to an RfC without any more light being shed, you should be taking the next steps in the dispute resolution process rather than attempting to rehash the same arguments here. If you want to get wtc7.net included as a reference, then rehashing the arguments here is not going to get you what you want.  --Durin 02:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Again, I don't want to get wtc7.net included as a reference; I think that would violate policy.  I would like to see it included as an external link - and as I said before, the reasons argued that it would violate policy if it existed in that capacity were laughable (never has Wikipedia held a policy that anything it links to must conform to its own standards on sourcing pictures!).  The matter was never settled, and the fact that a group of editors have managed to keep the article in a certain state for a certain period of time doesn't mean that they can hold it there indefinitely just by saying "we already discussed this."  --Hyperbole 05:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was settled, WP:EL covers this, see "Links normally to be avoided": points 2 and 4. Also see archive 3 above. Rx StrangeLove 05:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:EL also says that "Links normally to be avoided" is overrided by "What should be linked to" - and that there should be "On articles with multiple points of view, a link to prominent sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link."  wtc7.net is arguably the most prominent site dedicated to the controlled demolition of 7 WTC POV; the style guide clearly leads us to the conclusion that it should go in the external links.  And no, the issue hasn't been settled - some just consider it settled because the article is currently in a state they like.  --Hyperbole 05:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: We're linking to whatever we can build a consensus (or, if it comes to it, to use the dispute resolution process) to link to.  Here's yet another reminder that you're not Wikipedia's personal dictator; shame I have to keep handing these out to you.  You just make yourself look silly when you try to step into those shoes.  --Hyperbole 06:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Consesnus won't work if you violate policy and try to link to unreliable websites...the only thing that will happen is you'll end up being blocked for disruption. That goes for any other POV pushers here as well.--MONGO 06:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And, as I've pointed out, the only policies being violated by including wtc7.net in the external links are ones that have been invented on the spot by those who do not want it mentioned.  WP:EL makes it crystal clear that the site should be linked to.  It's a shame you'd threaten to block people for following it.  --Hyperbole 06:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:EL is a maunual of style...WP:RS used in conjuction with WP:V and WP:NOR eliminates wtc7.net from being a valid source for inclusion...we don't reference biased websites.--MONGO 07:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't reference biased websites, but we do link to them--WP:EL makes that clear.  The idea that internal Wikipedia policies such as WP:V and WP:NOR apply to external links has apparently been invented on this talk page, just for the purpose of excluding this website.  --Hyperbole 15:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: *As I see it, there's a dedicated group of editors obstructing a group of external links for reasons not rooted in policy.  It's important to make a record of that, since there are new editors all the time who rightfully notice the absence of appropriate links.  Telling them that "We settled this a long time ago" isn't going to fly; we didn't.  --Hyperbole 15:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *You've been directed as to where to go to seek remediation. You feel this isn't settled. Fine. You have your own opinion of the matter. Fine. However, it isn't going to be settled here any further. Continuing to rehash the debate so that newcomers to this can see the debate is not going to help improve the article, and that is what we are here to do. --Durin 15:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: wtc7.net as source

message: The source describes it as "the undercover office". The American Heritage Dictionary defines "clandestine" as "kept or done in secret". To delete that word from the sentence is to obscure the plain meaning of the source. So I'm putting it back. The deletion of Morgan Reynolds does improve NPOV though - so I'll have to agree on that. Ribonucleic 23:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletions to the conspiracy theory paragraph

message: As for cleanup, here is the article, as it existed when the cleanup tag was added.  The article had 10 references, and is now up to 23 references.  I'm not sure what more cleanup that person had in mind, but I think the tag can be removed now.   --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 17:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup tag

message: Some of you who observe this article may be interested in Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center. Of note, the here much debated appropriateness of using wtc7.net as a citable reference is used 13 times within that article. The article was up for AfD recently, and closed with no consensus. The closer noted in a plan of action that the articled needed "weeding out [of] improper references". --Durin 12:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I find it necessary to point out that the standards for using wtc7.net as a citable reference are altogether different from the standards for including wtc7.net as an external link.  --Hyperbole 05:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related article 

message: Maybe we should split the article into two? Such as '7 World Trade Center (1978-2001)' and '7 World Trade Center (2006)'
I think it would help the layout and stop any confusion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.70.137.224 (talk • contribs).
:That was exactly my proposal above, and I still think it's a good idea.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. ---- 62.85.113.216 17:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split pages 

message: I have heard that 7 WTD is supposed to be not only very safe, but also very green, and therefore a great addition to lower Manhattan.  Can anyone verify this 'greenness'?
:Looks like it's already in the article: "The building is considered New York City's first "green" office tower by gaining gold status in the US Green Building Council's LEED program."  The reference is  here:.  It's interesting to note that the architect who designed 7 WTC was hired to redesign the Freedom Tower and made it significantly less green.  --Hyperbole 04:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  7 WTC is Green? 

message: ...unless there are any objections with a good point. If no one has made a good objection within a week. I will split this into 7 World Trade Center (1987-2001) and 7 World Trade Center (2006).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.70.250.236 (talk • contribs).
:Undecided...allow the editors who have worked on this article in the past to chime in...but I'm leaning towards no split and also hoping you get a username.--MONGO 20:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On that last point, I agree.  I sent them a  as a little encouragement for them to register.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: See #Split_article.3F section above.  I don't think a split is needed at this point.  As we proceed with improving/expanding this article, I may change my mind on this.  Status quo is fine for now. The article isn't too long. --Aude (talk) 20:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: *Agreed. Status quo is probably fine for now, though I can see a case for splitting. --Durin 21:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I will split this into two articles... 

message: Hi, All.
Earlier today, a sentence in the article looked like this:
:Each floor had 47,000 square feet of rentable office space, which was considerably larger than most other buildings in New York City.
I changed it to this:
:Each floor had 47,000 square feet (4,366 m²) of rentable office space, which was considerably larger than most other buildings in the city.
Next, AudeVivere changed it to this:
:Each floor had 47,000 square feet (4,366 m²) of rentable office space, which made the building's floor plans considerably larger than most other office buildings in the city.
This still isn't clear. For one thing, this wording says that floor plans are larger than office buildings. Also, we should be clearer about which one of these we mean when we say "larger than most other office buildings in the city":
:• the whole building’s square footage of rentable office space in most NYC office buildings is less than 47,000
:• a single floor’s square footage of rentable office space in most NYC office buildings is less than 47,000.
Maybe some of you can help. The reasons for which I don't make the change myself are that I don't know which thing is meant, I'm not taking the time to investigate it, and I don't have access to the 1981 New York Times article.
Thanks!
President Lethe 19:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparing floor area 

message: The name was Salomon Brothers.  They were a tenant and the building never changed its name.  In the comprehensive Wall Street: Financial Capital by Robert Gambee published in 1999, they appear on pages 70-73 in 388 and 390 Greenwich Street under their name at that time Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.  For the 7 World Trade Center on page 206, they are listed as a tenant.
"Salomon Brothers, Inc." was merged with Smith Barney in 1997.  No structure in New York City carried the designation Salomon Brothers Building in 2001.  Finallly, Citigroup dropped the name Salomon in April 2003.
The BBC report which is much discussed among the conspiracy theorists seems to be the point of origin for the the incorrect identification of this building as the Salomon Brothers Building.  I spent some time this evening to find any source which could show this usage prior to 9/11/2001 and failed to find any.  The BBC got it wrong and the Wikipedia does not need to propagate the error. patsw 04:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solomon (sic) Brothers Building 

message: I removed a "Watch this" link to a 25 minute youtube propaganda piece. It was stranded and looked highly unencyclopedic, to say nothing of POV. It might be worthwhile to have a section on "Conspiracy Theories regarding WTC7 Collapse", but let's be honest, that's what they are. A theory about a conspiracy to bring down the building. dkatten 01:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Youtube Link 

message: I noted a certain amount of toing and froing on the article and tried to make an edit which I thought improved the article. I was promptly reverted by User:MONGO, with a (to me) meaningless edit summary. I wonder if other heads could look at this and see if we can reach a consensus. Is it, for example, still "early 2007"? How does one spell the word "accommodate" in English? What evidence is there that doubt about the reason for the collapse of the original building is "usually accompanied by other 9/11 conspiracy theories"? I do hope you are able to help. --Guinnog 15:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't do spelling questions :).  As for the doubt about the reason for the collapse, who espouses the doubts?  "some believe" is WP:WEASEL language.  If there are other persons other than Conspiracy theorists that have doubt, they should be listed, not replace with "some."  --Tbeatty 15:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. I have restored the fact tag on the linkage question though as I think it is important that this is verifiable. I checked the original ref and it seems that "by early 2007" was the original aim for the updated report. I suppose it is a matter of opinion when "early 2007" ends and "mid-2007" begins, but we must be getting there about now, I'd say? --Guinnog 15:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refresh 

message: Should Rosie's comments be added?
:Why would we add the opinion of a non expert?--MONGO 00:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, Rosie's opinion should be reflected, since she is prominent supporter of the controlled demolition hypothesis, her name should also be added to that "conspiratorial template". Lovelight 09:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: maybe after she does more than simply make a few comments...she isn't involved in writing any books or narration of films or similar yet.--MONGO 10:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rosie 

message: Please stop deleting my contribution to the article that the 9/11 Report made no mention of Building 7, unless you can provide a reason why it is not relevant to the article.  Thank you. Laikalynx 18:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact it mentions 7 WTC five times, though there is no discussion of the reasons for the collapse. (Search term "7 wtc") --Guinnog 18:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: See chapter 9, it is mentioned, as well as additional mentions during the 9/11 commission hearings.    Anyway, NIST and its structural engineering experts were tasked to investigate the collapse, while the 9/11 Commission focused on other aspects.  --Aude (talk) 19:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there is a peculiar footnote about it, however ignoring (treating it as minor occurrence) of WTC 7 collapse by commission is nothing but omission… therefore it should be referenced here as well as there. Will you do it Aude? Please? Lovelight 19:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The 9/11 Commission didn't ignore it.  The collapse was mentioned during the hearings, but they deferred to NIST and its structural engineering experts who were tasked with investigating the collapse of the three buildings. --Aude (talk) 19:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not happy with the wording we have at present. "Fueling..." seems like OR, and if we take that out we just have a statement that something didn't happen. --Guinnog 19:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This statement is not at all needed.  The 9/11 Commission was not comprised of structural engineering experts who were qualified to study the collapse.  Those experts are at NIST, who have done multi-year studies on the collapse of all three buildings. --Aude (talk) 20:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. --Guinnog 20:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The 911 commission was not compromised? How come? That is, even our (imo, deeply biased) article about omission is nothing but the criticism of it… Well, statement is gone, and I'm not the one who will fight for it… say, Aude, have you noticed those blueprints which surfaced earlier this month? Take a look, the NIST & FEMA actually misrepresented the Towers' Construction (such waste of money), it's very disturbing… to say the least. Lovelight 20:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That website is out to make a buck. Upper right of their pages, nice little button to push where one can donate to their cause. Facts from NIST are free.--MONGO 21:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi there Mongo, I'm not sure what's wrong with donations; those represent easy way to contribute to the effort. Have you actually clicked that button..? That reminds me… what was our score? Think it was well over million (we have to deserve that money you know)? Anyway, wouldn’t ask all this questions but this issue seems to reoccur lately… so let's be clear about it… it’s a choice, to donate something to someone is a choice… much as we choose to contribute to the this corpus here. That said, I've pointed to that particular location because of convenient (high-res) research tool, check it out. Then again, perhaps you are bothered by that assertion about wikipedia? Well, sometimes truth hurts… but we are striving to make things better here. Right?  Lovelight 21:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: If one wouldn’t know you better, one would say that you are resorting to some witty sarcasm here. Lovelight 10:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  9.11 Commission Report 

message: Ok I'm from Australia and not familiar at all with New York City or the layout. Looking at the map which highlights the 7WTC, is this a map before or after Sept 11? If after, WTC1 is the new Freedom Tower? ANd has the World Trade Plaza always been there or was that re-built? Thankyou :) Naysie 04:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The map in the article clearly identifies it as being before September 11, 2001.  The plaza was constructed by closing streets and creating a superblock starting around 1966.  The plaza has not been rebuilt as it remains a very large, active construction site. patsw 22:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A little confused

message: What is this new complex? This is a meaningless addition to the intro. patsw 01:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "New complex"? 

message: "Conspiracy theorists" is a pejorative term, no better than "Conspiracy nut."  Almost nobody self-identifies as a "conspiracy theorist," so the term is used by opponents of an assertion to denigrate its proponents.  There's evidence that tens or hundreds of millions of people believe in the controlled demolition hypothesis - including 16% of Americans.  It is absolutely unacceptably NPOV for a Wikipedia article to label millions and millions of people with a pejorative term like "conspiracy theorists."  Wikipedia does have a ridiculously OR and POV list of conspiracy theorists (which, at this writing, Dwight D. Eisenhower appears on).  It certainly does not include "the vast majority of the world" for believing in some conspiracy or other.  
Perhaps most importantly of all, there is no reliable source defining everyone who believes in the controlled demolition model as a "conspiracy theorist" - making that pejorative pure original research. --Hyperbole 17:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been discussed.  Look in the talk page archives.  Reliable sources do use the term "conspiracy theories" when talking about controlled demolition theories. Sources such as the CBC in Canada, for example.  I'm not willing to discuss this endlessly.  Consensus has already been reached, per previous talk page discussion. --Aude (talk) 00:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reliable sources do not say that everyone who believes in the controlled demolition theory - whether they call it a "conspiracy theory" or not - is a "conspiracy theorist."  No legitimate authority exists that asserts that 16% of Americans are conspiracy theorists.  And the fact that there has been a steady, ongoing stream of dissent against that characterization proves that there is anything but consensus here.  --Hyperbole 00:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Polls are relatively useless to determine facts. All we can say is that 16% answered the prescibed questions of this poll this way. Why can't we say that 84% felt otherwise?--MONGO 06:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, however the poll does not cite them as conspiracy theorists in it, that makes the term being used before the citation incorrect. I have reverted and returned it to the description as stated by the poll. I will just quote the line to make it easier. Please be aware those editing that misstating sources is quite easy to do by accident and should be carefully avoided. As for if polls are a reliable source of information, it is best to argue that on WP:RS. As for saying if 16% stated X then 84% meant the opposite as Y, you cannot do that since you do not know the basis of the questions, were 3 options given, 4, were participants permitted to skip certain questions entirely etc. Its a basic statistics, when all variables are not known, you should just quote the source, not draw from that what you believe is being stated. --SixOfDiamonds 20:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha. Likewise, all the poll seems to prove is that 16% of those that answered it are either uneducated or are simply prone to believing the impossible. I don't think it is notworthy in the least, so I am removing it. Thanks.--MONGO 20:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Since there is no proof of anything other than the known facts, for the opposite of this to be true would it would have to involve a conspiracy of at least two or more people to pull off (ie:Controlled demo or a similar act)...that there is no proof, all anyone can say is they have a theory...Conspiracy theory is not the least bit pejorative and is the appropriate wording to describe those who have chosen to not believe the known evidence or wish to refute it without verifiable facts.--MONGO 03:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The following is from the conspiracy theory article: "The term is also used pejoratively to dismiss claims that are alleged by critics to be misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish, irrational, or otherwise unworthy of serious consideration. For example "Conspiracy nut" and "conspiracy theorist" are used as pejorative terms. Some whose theories or speculations are labeled a "conspiracy theory" reject the term as prejudicial."  This is my point, and I really don't see why it is so important to use this term, when we can instead simply refer to the 9/11 Truth Movement or something along those lines--it seems far more neutral and nothing essential is lost since the sentence would be followed by good rebuttals of the CT viewpoint.  I think you know that "conspiracy theory" is a much more complicated and contested term then you suggest in your comment above, and while I do see how supporters of the controlled demo hypothesis could legitimately object to that label (and will probably continue to do so in the future) I don't see how they could object to a reference to the 9/11 Truth Movement (I think we should put "so-called" before it since it's a self-applied term).  In other words, changing the language would not alter meaning but would probably avoid some time wasting disputes in the future.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 19:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Conspiracy theory' is the terminology used by journalists, researchers, and academics. Tom Harrison Talk 19:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which journalists, researchers, and academics?  Where and when?  A citation should be required in order to include the "conspiracy theorist" language, and obviously there is none now. Even if some journalists, researchers, and academics use this term, what's the disadvantage to changing "conspiracy theorist" to "partisans of the so-called 9/11 Truth Movement?" I really do not understand the objection as the latter formulation would not require a citation and would be more neutral in its choice of words while the former would (or at least should) require a citation and will always be open to charges of POV (most misguided, some not). I don't see why saying "conspiracy theorist" is so important and it seems more trouble than it's worth.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 09:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only way anyone would be insulted by the term conspiracy theorists is if they lacked the education or intelligence to be able to distinguish facts from fiction on this matter.--MONGO 09:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: "Conspiracy theorist" is already cited and supported by two refs.    Furthermore, a search on Lexis-Nexis finds 6012 sources for 9/11 conspiracy theory vs 193 for 9/11 Truth Movement.  "Conspiracy theory" and theorist is by far the term most commonly used by reliable sources and is entirely reasonable to use here. --Aude (talk) 12:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "conspiracy theorists" language