Talk:9/11 domestic complicity conspiracy theories

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

observer's suggestion[edit]

Hi. Wouldn't it have been easier to just say '9/11 complicity theory'? Theory would indicate that it's not known to be fact, and complicity would indicate the type of theory. Another suggestion would be "claims of domestic complicity on Sept 11, 2001" or "9/11 domestic complicity claims" Obviously you people have been debating things for a long time already, but really "conspiracy theory" is a loaded term and isn't "neutral" as Wiki strives for. Anyway just my 2 cents. slig Aug 18


Page rename vote was moved - and proponents of rename lost the vote[edit]

For the record, the vote on renaming this page was moved to another page.

The proponents of the rename from 9/11 domestic conspiracy theories to another name lost the vote. --Cberlet 16:22, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a vote on renaming this page anywhere on the page you linked to. I do see one on this page, though. And it is a tie. Kevin Baastalk: new 16:36, 2005 May 8 (UTC)
The conclusion on the "Conspiracy theory" page was simply that there should be no hard-and-fast rule mandating a name change across WP. That's what people kept repeating like a mantra, and that's what happened. It had nothing to do with any initiative to rename this page. BrandonYusufToropov 16:41, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The vote on this page is inconclusive as well. That means there is no consensus for changing the title of this article. For editors to participate in the vote, and then ignore its results, does not show good faith. -Willmcw 17:00, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
The move was done earlier, when the vote had not been modified in a long time, and because the consensus on the talk pages is that the relevant meaning of "conspiracy theory" is not the denigrative and dimunitive one, but the technical "theory of conspiracy" one. Also, nowhere on these talk pages has anyone disputed that this article refers to a theory of complicity, as distinct from that of a conspiracy (see for example, the current title, which you are not objecting to). Therefore the phrase "conspiracy theory", in terms of the consensus meaning, is an inappropriate characterization of this article. Kevin Baastalk: new 22:51, 2005 May 8 (UTC)

To the contrary, page rename vote had nothing to do with this page[edit]

And I can't believe how much time and energy people are wasting on this when they could actually be working on articles. BrandonYusufToropov 16:43, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then explain this paragraph from above on this page:
" Following Cberlet's idea above, I've set up Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory as a place to discuss this issue. I suggest we use the main page rather than the talk page, then if consensus develops, we can move the discussion to talk, and summarize the consensus for the main page for editors in future to consult (not as policy but as a guideline). But if others prefer to use the page differently, that's fine by me. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:33, May 2, 2005 (UTC) "
The vote was moved, and the page rename crew lost.--Cberlet 16:50, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What part of this reality is not obviously documented on these two pages? Why is there a revert/remane war over an issue that was decided democratically? Why the rewriting of history to claim that changing the name from 9/11 domestic conspiracy theories was a consensus?--Cberlet 16:55, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
1) Take a look at the proposals as they were actually written.
2) Check to see if they have anything to do with this article.
3) Ask yourself: Is that what people were voting on?
4) Review carefully the only "consensus" that emerged:
The issue may not lend itself to having a general policy, and should probably be decided on a case-by-case basis. (Not my conclusion, but clearly the prevailing view.) BrandonYusufToropov 17:09, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 domestic complicity conspiracy theories[edit]

I've moved the page to 9/11 domestic complicity conspiracy theories and fixed the multitude of redirects. This is the most accurate of titles and is the only one supported by both the vote on this page and the vote at Wikipedia talk:Conspiracy theory. Carbonite | Talk 17:31, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I construe this as you endorsing the view that this article describes a theory of complicity as distinct form a theory of conspiracy, and as you endorsing the view that the meaning of the phrase "conspiracy theory", in the given context, is other than "theory of conspiracy". Kevin Baastalk: new 19:51, 2005 May 9 (UTC)
I agree with the explanation provided above by Jayjg:
Conspiracy theories are well recognized observable phenomena that other encyclopedias refer to. The particular collection of conspiracy theories discussed in this article all assert varying sorts of U.S. complicity in the 9/11 attacks, therefore the title 9/11 domestic complicity conspiracy theories most accurately summarizes the article content.
Carbonite | Talk 19:56, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This does not help me understand your position regarding the two issues I brought up: 1) whether this article describes theories of complicity or theories of conspiracy (a simple binary question) 2) whether the meaning of "conspiracy theory", in the given context, is "theory of conspiracy", or other. (a simple binary question) I would like confirmation of your position on these two issues. Kevin Baastalk: new 20:39, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

Id like to add that to use the word 'Conspiracy theory' for any view that is unorthodox is to load the argument. What is the official view of 19 arabs than a conspiracy theory? Since 6 of the alleged hijackers turned up alive after 9-11, the identity of the hijckers is unknown, and the attack against the US was as much a conspiracy as Watergate. So either label all the theories 'conspiracy theory', or avoid the phrase.

Conspiracy theory says "Conspiracy theories often defy an official or dominant understanding of events, and proponents sometimes substitute zeal for logic." As such, the official view is not a conspiracy theory, and all other "explainations" are. --Quasipalm 14:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For disputed information showing US complicity in 9/11[edit]

We have a growing 9/11 section in a conspiracy wiki for this where your information will be less likely to be edited out. We would be glad to have you come by and add it in. Conwiki 04:57, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add the conspiracy...[edit]

...both these external links:

...cited in the article in this paragraph:

Critics also claim that Bush has not allowed a proper investigation of the attacks (as of October 2003, the bipartisan commission continues to be barred from certain "key intelligence" documents by Bush, and is considering subpoena power [6] [7]

are broken

Disputed title[edit]

An editor created a new temple Template:TitleDisputed and added it to this article without comment on May 19. Since there has been no discussion on the title matter on this page in weeks, the dispute seems to have settled down. There does not seem to be a consensus on this page for a title change. -Willmcw 21:20, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

For the record, I dispute the current title for this page. BrandonYusufToropov 22:07, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, you folks lost the vote. Get over it.--Cberlet 22:12, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A vote doesn't mean the losing side simply disappears, as much as you might like for that to happen. The fact that pro status quo title editors chose not to debate for 2 weeks does not mean there is no dispute. zen master T 22:23, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason for the "losing side" to disappear. But to keep arguing points that have already been discussed and settled verges on troll-like behavior. You made a proposal, a large number of editors weighed in, and the end result was a lack of consensus for change. Just as it's bad form to renominate a VfD a week or two after it's been defeated, it is also unhelpful to keep resurrecting this issue which has been settled. -Willmcw 05:46, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
If there is a legitimate neutrality dispute I don't think it unreasonable for an article to reflect that fact with a simple header. The point is the issue has not been settled. The TitleDisputed template was ok in various articles for 2 weeks, no one complained until suddenly now when you want to remove it. zen master T 07:19, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You folks lost a vote, and now want to start the debate over again. Play fair. Stop pretending there was not already a lengthy debate and vote--WHICH YOU FOLKS LOST! You seek to wear editors down with this anti-democratic farce.--Cberlet 12:11, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There exists a legitimate neutrality dispute, it's not about winning and losing it's about striving for a higher level of neutrality. zen master T 16:59, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
According to you there is a legitimate neutrality dispute; not according to the majority. Please accept the consensus. Jayjg (talk) 21:11, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You misframe the issue. The legitimacy of a neutrality dispute is unrelated to a vote on a course of action to take. Wikipedia should encourage the resolution of disputes on the talk page rather than encourage sock puppetry for voting. I have supported the inclusion of disputed headers many times in articles in situations when I disagreed with the editor that added the disputed headers's POV. If you don't believe there is a legitimate dispute then I suggest arbitration. zen master T 21:19, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You misframe the issue; it is not whether the template can be inserted in the first place, but whether it can be forced to remain in the article permanently because one editor refuses to accept consensus. The latter is what you are attempting to do. Please desist. Oh, and arbitration is not the first step towards conflict resolution, and the likelihood that the Arbitration Committee would accept this case in any event is extremely low, but you can certainly attempt it if you wish. Jayjg (talk) 21:27, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If one side choses not to debate and work towards true consensus on the issue then the header most certainly can remain. You are effectively arguing the majority can wipe away legitimate complaints of neutrality violation, that is not encyclopedic nor working towards a true consensus. zen master T 21:34, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This is absurd; if people don't agree with you, then you insist they are "not working towards true consensus", and if they tire of you constantly repeating the same old and refuted claims, then you insist "they choose not to debate". I'm not going to repeat myself anymore here; if you have something new to say, then say it, but if it's the same old arguments, then respect consensus and stop holding articles hostage. Jayjg (talk) 21:47, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Consensus? I looked at the vote, and the outcome is 12 vs. 32, which means that 72.7% supported the word "conspiracy" in titles and 27.3% opposed it. This is not consensus. This is not even the dubious Wikipedia construct of "rough consensus." This is a disagreement, and when there is such substantial disagreement about a topic, an effort should be made to find a reonciliatory solution, rather than dismissing other people's opinion and referring to the "vote". Wikipedia is primarily operated by the search for true consensus among reasonable people, and as long as a substantial number of sane individuals have strong objection against the title, the discussion should continue. Furthermore, this was a vote on a blanket policy about such titles, not on any individual title. That makes it further inapplicable to use it to dictate some specific outcome for this page. I personally don't think that a blanket policy is a good idea, that doesn't mean that I support this article under its present title.
As for the issue, my primary argument against the term "conspiracy theory" is that it is inconsistently used. The official story of Osama Bin Laden and his hijackers is as much a conspiracy theory as any other at the present time. It may be believed by more people, it may have more substantiating arguments than most, but that doesn't change that fact. I suspect that those who use "conspiracy theory" will always use it to brand particular articles in a certain way that suits their POV (given the strong connotations which the term invokes, popularized by highly emotional television shows like The X-Files, newspaper editorials, cartoons, etc.), rather than to try to find a meaningful description. That is a reason to avoid the term entirely.
I support keeping the dispute tag on the grounds that there is still an ongoing dispute about the title. The vote that has happened doesn't change that, in fact, it reinforces this fact. My personal preference would be to use the word complicity, or to use conspiracy theory consistently.--Eloquence* 21:50, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
"Rough consensus" is more than two-thirds. Jayjg (talk) 21:54, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
According to who? To quote from Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators, the only policy page I'm aware of that strives for a definition: "The general rule on disputed topics is that Wikipedia has to come to 'rough consensus', though the meaning of this is disputed. The exact method of determining rough consensus varies from time to time, case to case, and person to person. The lack of voting has caused some long delays for some proposals, but most Wikipedians who have witnessed rough consensus after acrimonious debates feel that the delays often result in better results." (italics mine)--Eloquence* 22:00, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
Quoting from Wikipedia:Deletion policy: "(what a rough consensus is is not set in stone, some do consider a 2/3 majority a "rough consensus", while others believe consensus implies a higher ratio)". Jayjg (talk) 22:12, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Exactly -- there is no generally agreed upon definition on what "rough consensus" is, let alone real consensus in policymaking. What matters is the strength of the beliefs, whether they are held by trusted users, whether discussions have been attempted, what compromises have been tried, and so on. This issue is far from being settled. Please do not refer to the result vote as "consensus", it is not and, as I noted above, it has no ramifications on the question whether this page should be moved to a different title.--Eloquence*
My statement was still correct; "rough consensus" is more than two-thirds. How much more is in dispute, but your claim that a 73% vote "is not even rough consensus" is arguable at best. Jayjg (talk) 22:22, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Non neutral intro edit[edit]

If there is no evidence that the particular people alleging things in this article are discredited generally how can this edit be considered neutral? [1] This is exactly why the phrase "conspiracy theory" is not neutral, thanks for making it even more obvious, though I suspect this is all a sinister plan/test case of the phrase's usefulness and effectiveness (51% hyperbole). zen master T 04:52, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am fairly certain that many users are against the inclusion of 'conspiracy theory' in article titles at all, and against referring to it as 'the conspiracy theory of X' in the article. The problem with Noitall's edit is that it uses these words to label a particular group's motives and characteristics. Better results could be obtained from saying 'this phenomenon is sometimes/often viewed as a conspiracy theory', which is more neutral and less loaded with buzzwords. →Ingoolemo← talk 05:49, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)
I greatly object to any revert for a balanced edit. This article is all POV (or stupidity). Any balance at all would describe in the beginning that most people believe that this is a bunch of junk and only used to discredit certain politicians, nationalities or cultures. With that in mind, I accept Ingoolemo's suggested changes, which I do think improve the edit.

--Noitall 06:09, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Ingoolemo, you were correct that my edit was redundant. There could not be any more POV in this article, especially since a miniscule number of people believe this junk. So there must be a way to say that most people think these conspiracy nuts are a bunch of kooks, and many people are greatly offended by their promoting such crazy theories, mostly for political reasons, in view of all the death and destruction that was 9/11. How many thousands of children do not have a parent? Such a crazy theory is not harmless.

--Noitall 06:26, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

In this case, I think stating that 'many' or 'most' people consider this a conspiracy theory is sufficient to make its dubious nature clear. → Ingoolemo ← talk 06:57, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)

Vandalism by Yuber[edit]

Yuber (talk · contributions) gets an award: The editor has started his one millionth edit war! Yuber only knows how to insert his POV in articles, and only by reverting. Even worse, Yuber vandalizes pages, even User pages, see [[2]]. Many others have cited Yuber and there is an effort from many others to ban the editor from Wiki, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. --Noitall 22:41, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

More regarding neutrality[edit]

Noitall, I have reverted your edit again. The description blasts theorists with vitriol so unbalanced it should not be included in the article. The second paragraph should be retained, and the first is far superior as it is. → Ingoolemo ← talk 00:17, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

I also remind you that Yuber's edits are not vandalism, and that so-called 'reactionary reverts' do not give you the authority to revert back. → Ingoolemo ← talk 00:17, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

Ingoolemo, you have absolutely lost your way. I admit to vitriol about this subject. The basis of my opinion is as I stated. I do not try to hide my opinion, including whether I have a POV. And I admit that my edit absolutely added a POV. But this is an article that is entirely 1 POV. I simply wanted to add a 2nd, and contrary, POV. In addition, it is missing much facts and context. Finally, many of the facts are missing sources or the sources are totally discredited. In other controversial articles such as this, which would otherwise be a candidate for deletion, the solution was, in each section, to include the contrary POV. I believe that is appropriate in this case. Including only 1 POV, and one that is believed by a miniscule section of the population, and one that has a political foundation, is wrong and makes the article POV. --Noitall 00:37, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

And that, Noitall, is why you changed the introduction of the article to directly conflict with the entire contents? Because you feel your POV is under-represented? Your POV should be a footnote to this article, or in a counterpoint section following all the evidence it so casually dismisses. --Connel MacKenzie 14:05, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
I guess you have not been involved in any controversial pages on Wiki, Connel. Let me educate you on procedure since you did not clearly read what I wrote before. The article is all POV. Wiki NPOV policies mean the article should be deleted or an alternative POV added. In most cases, that means add the alternative POV to give balance. If you are willing to believe or even participate in these things, I can not educate you on science or common sense. But science and common sense seem to be a rather good POV to have.

--Noitall 22:45, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

It is clear to me that you are the only one here resorting to underhanded tactics, completely out of line withing Wiki*. I certainly do not need any education from you. You are repeatedly mangling this article only to push your own personal political views. You could have offered scientific counterpoints, but instead you seem to be in the habit of patroling this one lone article and mangling it routinely. --Connel MacKenzie 00:52, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
All points of view should be outlined and described, as well as specific criticism of these views. An 'alternative POV' should not be added, per se. The article should not judge the merits of the viewpoints (as your edit did); judgement includes the qualitative assessment of how many people hold that view ('many', 'most', 'majority', and the like). General statements, such as 'some people consider some or all of these theories to be conspiracism', should also include specific criticisms of each presented theory, preferrably referenced. Ingoolemo talk 23:28, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
Ingoolemo you are mostly correct in your assertion. Where you go entirely wrong is in applying it. This conspiracy theory is based on NO science and NO credible evidence. In fact, it is primarily based on a political viewpoint and promoted by people with a political objective. That is the basis for my statement that it is entirely POV and should otherwise be removed. That goes contrary to my own personal policy. But "balancing" a story with the only credible science and assessments and noting that only fringe people with an ax to grind belief this stuff seems to be the minimum that can be done. --Noitall 13:34, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
Let me further add that Ingoolemo, you do not hold to the standard for the side you appear to favor because you have not reverted or deleted unreferenced assertions or assertions made without any credibility by political opportunists. You have certainly not contributed to providing the "balance" that is needed. --Noitall 13:32, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
Your personal attacks highlight your lack of character as well as a total lack of ethics, Noitall. Perhaps you should look into a career in politics? --Connel MacKenzie 00:52, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
Wake up Connel, you are 2 weeks behind. Good thing that you state that you only make the "rare edit here on Wikipedia." Go somewhere else to stir up trouble, this was over an edit. --Noitall 01:09, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
Not everyone is obsessed with presenting their POV as you are. The simple fact is that your changes are indicitive of your "vitriol" and do not reflect a NPOV that wiki strives for. --Connel MacKenzie 01:39, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Cutline for Vreeland note[edit]

I edited out the claim that the Vreeland note pointed to Osama bin Laden as the culprit for 9/11. Can anyone explain this claim. It is not at all clear from reading the image of the note that this claim is accurate.--Cberlet 08:54, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of Challenging official accounts[edit]

Zen-master has a fair objection to not providing a rationale for the deletion of this section:

On December 16, 2004, financier James W. Walter offered a reward of $100,000 to anyone who can prove that the WTC towers collapsed in the manner described in the government's investigative report.

This section has been deleted several times over the last couple weeks by several editors. It is irrelevant for 2 reasons: 1. How the World Trade Center collapsed is entirely irrelevant to this article. This section does not say that there is the existance of evidence that there was a conspiracy to cause the collapse, and 2. The fact that one person without any knowledge is cited for anything, but really really wishes his conspiracy to come true, only demonstrates a political POV and nothing more.

--Noitall 19:52, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Isn't that the essence of a "conspiracy theory"? The fact that someone is offering money for people to undertake a scientific investigation into the twin towers collapse is certainly notable? zen master T 23:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You are correct that that is the essense of conspiracy theory. But the fact that one person believes it and has resources to make the news does not prove anything, and really is not even newsworthy except as conclusive proof that there is at least one kook out there, a rich kook at that. This person is no scholar, has no information or knowledge (there, the essence of conspiracy theory!), and has offered nothing to the debate but money.

--Noitall 02:14, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

The issue is whether it is noteworthy or not. I believe a private citizen putting up a reward for additional scientific info about the collapse of the buildings to be noteworthy enough for inclusion in the article. zen master T 06:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's Ridiculous. I offer a penny to prove that anyone promoting such theories is lacking at least half their brain. If we are going to include Walter, then please include me also. --Noitall 07:57, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

A penny isn't noteworthy. The point the reward offerer is trying to make is that no one has made an official, scientifically sound case for the twin tower's collapse. Do you support additional scientific analysis? We can rephrase the paragraph rather than remove it. zen master T 08:28, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I am tired of this topic. Last time: Walter admits he knows nothing. We do not add people on Wiki who admit they know nothing. Just because he is rich and made the news does not mean they are relevant to the article or to the topic. The insertion cannot be modified to be rational or relevant. Everything has been said on this topic and there isn't anything else. Please reread and try to understand. Zen-master, I started with acknowledging your initial demand was correct, but now you are getting tiresomely irrational.

--Noitall 13:47, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

I would like to keep it removed, until it turns up something. Just offering money isn't enough to make it notable. There should be some sort of concerted project to turn up the evidence before it's notable enough for inclusion. Ingoolemo talk 23:46, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)

This is POV ?[edit]

To suggest these theories are held by a substantial number of people is frankly amazing. NORAD conducts exercises all the time, including how to deal with hi-jacked aircraft. Vreeland is a total conman who wasn't released by Canadian authorities, but skipped out on bail pending his extradition hearing in 2002 before being arrested by US authorities in 2004.

  • I agree with you Drusslegend (you forgot to sign). I think there are are couple reasons for the phenomenon:

1. People have a political or religious POV, and they might not believe this stuff, but it gives them something to talk about.

2. 1 time worldly events are just so unique that they do not fit into our framework of thinking.

3. Only 1% of the world are stuped idiots, but that is still a lot of idiots.

Just my unsourced totally POV opinion . . . --Noitall 05:00, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

  • And like the other 99 percent of intelligent idiots, these "stuped" idiots deserve a wikipedia article on their beliefs. →ubεr nεmo lóquï 23:02, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
You are absolutely correct. It is certainly notable. My comments have more to do with the amazement that it has become notable (although no amazement on the political motivation). --Noitall 04:18, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
And if spelling when tping indicates smartnes, thn I mite be in the "stuped" category mysellf.  :) --Noitall 04:20, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Popular mechanics article doesn't mention the foreknowledge, the war games or the collapsing of WTC7.[edit]

The popular science article at the top states that these conspiracy theories and all allegations were investigated by professionals and debunked. But the only allegation from this page that the article 'debunkes' is the stand down order. It doesn't mention the foreknowledge or the war games. Sure, the article can be mentioned in this page but it should not be presented as the debunker of this theory.--P8 4 July 2005 18:48 (UTC)

P8 and Connel MacKenzie: please stop removing the reference to the Popular Mechanics article until more discussion takes place. If the PM article doesn't analyse certain important elements of the conspiracy theories, then mention it in these omissions in our article instead of completely removing the paragraph.
At this point I would also like to remind all parties involved of the three-revert rule, which says that you may not revert an article more than three times in a 24-hour period, or you will be blocked for 24 hours. Sorry if I appear condescending, but it's best to make sure everyone is aware of the rules before I enforce them. Ingoolemo talk 2005 July 5 18:16 (UTC)
Agreed on both points. Jayjg (talk) 5 July 2005 19:00 (UTC)

Sure. I changed the wording again (before I read this) but left it in place this time (instaed of moving it to counter claims). Although it seems out of place at the top, as an intro to an article about foreknowledge. --P8 5 July 2005 19:04 (UTC)
I NPOVd your wording. Jayjg (talk) 5 July 2005 19:21 (UTC)
I agree that that the paragraph is out of place at the top, and counter-claims seems like the most reasonable section for it. Ingoolemo talk 2005 July 5 21:53 (UTC)
It is only out of place because the detail may be inappropriate for the summmary. But the summary must have a portion devoted to this. And "counter-claims" is an inappropriate subsection for this. --Noitall July 6, 2005 08:11 (UTC)
The 9/11 domestic complicity conspiracy theories assert that either President George W. Bush, or members of his cabinet, or United States intelligence agencies had detailed advance knowledge about the attacks, and allowed it to happen or even caused it. If the popular science article debunkes the foreknowledge it can be in the summary. Otherwise it should be in a article about conspiracy theories asserting pods on the planes, the deliberate collapsing of the WTC, the Pentagon crash mystery and the crash of flight 93.--P8 6 July 2005 17:38 (UTC)
Allegations (and some facts) from the article:
  1. Foreign intelligence warnings
  2. Key officials were warned
  3. Norad was doing airplane into building crash exercises on the day of the attacks
  4. Norad stand-down order
  5. The pentagon plane hit a largely empty section
  6. Vreeland knew the attacks would happen
  7. Bush has not allowed a proper investigation
  8. Plans to invade Ahganistan and Iraq were ready before the attacks
Allegations addressed by Popular mechanics
  1. Pods on the planes
  2. Norad stand-down order
  3. Flight 175's Windows
  4. Intercepts Not Routine
  5. The deliberate collapsing of the WTC
  6. The Pentagon crash mystery
  7. The shooting down of flight 93
1 out of 8 is not many. The article addresses the stand-down order. You might as well use the article at the Apollo moon landing hoax accusation as it addresses just 1 allegation less than this article.--P8 8 July 2005 18:12 (UTC)
I must agree with P8 that this wikikipedia article seems to focus on addressing different conspiracies (predominantly soft conspiracies, relating to foreknowledge) while the popular mechanics article mainly deals with other theories (predominantly soft theories relating to physical realities being different to the commonly accepted version of events.) The slant of the Popular Mechanics article is hardly surprising considering the overal theme of that magazine. That slant is different to the predominant theme of this wikipedia article, which mainly deals with the extent of Bush administration's foreknowledge. Putting the paragraph at the top of the article introduced in the way that it is, gives the impression that the theories in this wikipedia article have been disproved, when in fact the majority of them have not been addressed by the experts at Popular Mechanics.--Timtak 11:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

-->You are re-raising this discussion from over a month ago. There is only one theory on foreknowledge, with different facts that supposedly allege it. It is a more political theory and that is why it is promoted on this page. Actually, the popular mechanics article addresses many of the more notable theories. The fact that other editors with a political objective and less science background have not otherwise written something on Wiki about the more notable theories, well be my guest, I am not going to write about them. --Noitall 11:49, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

-->I am raising this discussion because it seems to be relevant to the article. I nearly did not read this wikipedia article because I thought that the conspiracy theories had been dealt with. It seems to me that the the bulk of this wikipedia article deals with an assertion which I will paraphrase as the Bush adminstration was aware of impending attacks but did not stop them due to the way in which the attacks could be used subsequently. We know that the Bush administration was aware to an extent of the impending attacks. The question addressed by the following sections regards the size of the extent of foreknowledge, and whether desire to use them affect the way that the foreknowledge was used.
1.1 Foreknowledge
1.2 Stand-down order and War Games
1.3 An excuse to invade Iraq
1.4 An excuse to invade Afghanistan
1.5 Justification for a Resource War
1.6 Delmart Vreeland
1.7 Criticism on 9/11 Investigation and openness
3 Historical precedent
The PM article appears on my reading to focus on physical details of the event such as whether one of the planes was shot down, whether the petagon was attacked by a missile, whether there were special pods on the bottom of the plane and other issues which, importantly for me, seem to be far less plausible. There is some overlap, but the overlap does not, in what I hope is my unbiased view, seem to warrant prominence of the PM article and the way that it is introduced in this wikipedia article. The PM article is fine but it largely deals with other topics. It might be mentioned in the counter claims section since it does deal with assertions that the fighter response to the highjackings was deliberately reduced. -- 13:34, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I know that you are new to this article, but you have actually highlighted the problem with it. Respectfully, it does not matter which issues are important to you or you think warrant prominence. The issue is what is notable in the public. And much of what you state is why this article is a soapbox for political POV. You stated it, currently there is 1 issue (Bush) and several assertions. The public though has focused on some of the technical aspects. If you wanted to make a valid point, it is that not enough has been written about the items the public thinks are notable. But, as I said before, I am not going to write it. --Noitall 13:49, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
I am glad you agree that the Practical Mechanics article and the article here do not treat the same issues, and that this wikipedia article deals predominantly with one issue that is only touched upon in Practical Mechanics. We are in agreement. There are differences in our opions however
  • The nature of public opinion regarding domestic conspiracy surrounding 9/11. It seems to me that while there are many conspiracy theories published on the internet, such as the claim that the Pentagon was not hit by a plane but a missile, these conspiracy theories are not necessarily more representative of public opinion. It may be that these other theories represents minority views and this theory expressed on this page represents more generally held concern. Our assessment of public opinion differ.
  • There is another page called Rumors about the September 11, 2001 attacks which deals with many of the issues dealt with by the Practical Mechanics article. It would seem consistant and appropriate to me that the Practical Mechanics article be dealt with in that page, possibly its summary. That article also addresses "foreknowledge" and refers to this article for a more detailed treatment.
  • Whether "summaries" or introductions of articles should deal with what the article should cover, or what the article does in fact cover. It seems to me that assuming you are right about the current article not being representative of domestic conspiracy theory and POV, then the article as well as the summary should be changed, since as it stands the article is not self consistent. One way of making the article self consistent would be to refer to the other conspiracy theories mentioned in Rumors about the September 11, 2001 attacks and the PM article. Another way would be to rename this article to something like "Conspiracy Theories Concerning foreknowledge of the September 11, 2001 attacks". In view of the fact that Rumors about the September 11, 2001 attacks is a seperate article, and that neither you or I wish to relate them again here, the second choice of action seems more appropriate. However if it were the case that this article does in fact deal with mainstream, un-debunked, conspiracy theory regarding domestic involvement in the attacts, then the present title might be deemed to remain appropriate.
  • I agree that this article is political. But I think that this is not avoidable bearing in mind the fact that the article discusses claims about the political actions of politicians. But this fact does not affect the veracity of the claims, but conversely may relate to popular support for the claims from others of similar polical persuasion.
  • The question as to whether this article is POV or not highlights one of the problems of articles about 'conspiracy theories' since as such they are essentially articles about unproven theories, or Points of View. Once such articles are deemed worthy of inclusion, I think that they should at least be consistent, and we agree that the current article is not.
  • That is because of the ones you mention, with the exception of one (that includes several) they are not even credible enough to be raised by any serious NPOV magazine. You actually only have one, the foreign intelligence warnings, which was not a part of the science report but is addressed in the 9/11 Report. Just because 1 or 2 stupid, gullible or POV people raise an issue does not mean that it must be addressed in any serious forum or on Wiki. --Noitall July 8, 2005 20:37 (UTC)
You found sources that the NRO exerise didn't happen on 9/11 and that key officials weren't warned? Great! Add them to the article! Oh, and why is many less POV than seven? --P8 8 July 2005 21:19 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are talking about. I suppose it is impossible to make sense about a subject that lacks common sense. Enough. --Noitall July 8, 2005 23:00 (UTC)


this article is so incredibly POV. The entire thing reads like a conspiracy site. to fix it we need to have each claim qualified, and match it with a rebuttal if one exists. Just because conspiracy theorists claim something doesnt mean its true (or even that their basic facts are right because quite often they are not). Only then can this article even begin to resemble NPOV. Bonus Onus July 9, 2005 03:16 (UTC)

  • Amen. --Noitall July 9, 2005 18:30 (UTC)

If any of the basic facts are wrong, and asserted as correct, not just believed, please point them out. Raskolnikov The Penguin 03:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the facts in the article are distorted or flatly wrong. Unfortunately, attempting to point out any of it would be entirely a waste of time. This is like when my neighbor says "The moon landings were faked." Once a conspiracy that outrageous is proposed, there's nothing you can do to dispute it - no matter what counter-argument you propose, no matter what facts you put forth, no matter what links you give, it doesn't matter, the truth will never be believed. The 9/11 domestic conspiracy theories are identical. No matter what evidence you put forth to show that each and every point of the conspiracy is wrong, those who believe in it will simply say "Well, they certainly fooled you, now didn't they?" My reccommendation is just to delete this entire article as being nonsense. Xaa 19:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For even dubious subjects wikipedia's neutrality policy still requires us to present evidence neutrally, any and all conclusions of dubiousness should be inferred from neutrally presented evidence, rather than presumed because of presumption inducing language. Using excessively discrediting language such as "conspiracy theories" taints the presentation of the evidence, so all conclusions are likewise tainted. zen master T 19:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, you are incorrect. Your assertion would actually ignore common beliefs and analysis by others. Ignoring such issues is the same original research and POV as making them up in the first place. Neutrality requires that we don't state our belief, but state analyists and society's belief. These are call conspiracy theories and to change that would be inserting a particular POV. --Noitall 20:12, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
Listing facts is not original research, they had to have been told of by somebody for you to know them. Putting them together to assume something is POV, but all the "conspiracy theories" in this article are believed by atleast afew others. Not being mainstream is a poor excuse to label a plethora of ideas together with a name that tells all readers to beware. No political view or theory is ever proved completely. Either we label unfairly those with a small following and vice versa for the mainstream ones, or present facts and "conspiracy theorist's" views and let the reader draw his or her own opinion without being first shown a big POV sign. The article displays the point of veiw of analysts and others, just like the article on any other political ideal, or party, or religion. Uber nemo 20:30, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
Those with a "small following" are not notable and should either not be Wiki listed or it should be noted why they have such a small following (because the belief is absurd) and are out of the mainstream. --Noitall 04:29, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Wikepedia has tons of articles about ideas, philosophies, religions etc. that have a small following and are "out of the mainstream", that's what makes Wikepedia a good encyclopedia, its comprehensive, and doesn't just cover mainstream views. And can you tell me how many people have to be in belief of an idea for it to be mainstream? just to see what other articles should be considered for deletion under the Noitall deletion policy. →uber nemo→ talk edits 15:31, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
The issue is a simple one, it is the issue of notability. Unfortunately, as noted by many many other editors, conspiracy theories are especially subject to original research from Wiki editors, violating its policies. Wiki should be used only to summarize notable "theories" that become notable from outside credible sources, not because Wiki editors want to make them notable. --Noitall 15:47, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
Again I ask, what constitutes "notable" and "mainstream". And I don't see where you're going with saying editors want to make somthing more notable, should the article be decreased in size or notability to make it proportional to more popular beliefs according to the amount of its following? beacuse this seems like building an encyclopedia on POV.→uber nemo→ talk edits 04:24, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
Good question but perhaps the easiest one of all. The press loves a good story and any conspiracy theory that is even close to notable or mainstream, and maybe not, would be written up in a second by the AP, Reuters, etc. and all across the country. When it does, it becomes notable (even it still a little nuts). --Noitall 04:34, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
First of all, if wikepedia relied on Reuter's articles to decide what theories to include, this would be a pretty empty encyclopedia. Also media would never directly assert gov involvement in 911 because it would offend too many readers, especially if they don't have absolute proof. Facts in this article that pointed to conspiracy, such as: the downing papers, halliburton-Cheney connections, CIA failure, bush's refusal to testify under oath before the 911 commission, and other minor points were brought up by credible news sources such as the new york times . Also fahrenheit 911 was the highest grossing documentary in history (and it pointed directly at conspiracy), which shows a large amount of people were willing to listen to conspiracy theories. →uber nemo→ talk edits 16:05, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
No sources --> No article. As you said, this might turn out to be a very short article. At this rate, maybe the only thing that remains is the sourced conspiracy theories by Popular Mechanics. --Noitall 03:51, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
I was visiting America from England on September the 11, and I was at Arlington Cemetary that early morning. We were jetlagged so we had woken up quite early. I saw that plane fly just over Arlington, perhaps only a hundred meters, so don't tell me it was some sort of "missle" when I saw that plane on it's way to hit the World Trade Center.

What is a "stand down" order? -


i need comments:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/London bombing

--Striver 19:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Feel free to join, together we are not ridiculed and dismissed as easy.

--Striver 20:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New title comments[edit]

It's interesting page moves (article renaming) no longer shows up in watchlists anymore (for some strange reason) and interesting that the new title is not automatically added to your watchlist if you were watching the old title. It's even more coincidentally interesting that suddenly these days when an editor renames an article they or someone else does not quickly clean up the intro to reflect the new title; doing so would cause the page to appear in everyone's watchlist under the new title which someone or group may be trying to avoid (it always seems to be some sort of test or game playing). All changes should be above board for everyone to see when they happen, I should file a bug with the wikimedia developers though this "bug" is likely a "feature" to someone.

However, in my interpretation the new title of this article is a vast improvement on the old but I still think 9/11 domestic complicity theories is better, at the very least it should be "theories" plural, shouldn't it? If there is now suddenly a consensus or near consensus for a title change perhaps we should search for an even better title for this article? If someone doesn't like "theories" as being too nebulous or insubstantial (which is why they added "and evidence") we can perhaps go with something even shorter like 9/11 domestic complicity but that may be too conclusive in the opposite direction, how about 9/11 domestic complicity controversy? The article also needs more info on financial and political motivation theories for possible 9/11 domestic complicity. zen master T 22:41, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And it looks like Carbonite noticed the renaming finally and moved the page back, alas, I thought some sort of progress was being made. zen master T 22:48, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen anyone mention that title, so I don't think there really was consensus for the move. Change doesn't necessarily equate to progress. Carbonite | Talk 22:51, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On Talk:Saddam_Hussein_and_Al-Qaeda, it was voted that "conspiracy theory" does not belong in a title, because it vioaltes the NPOV policy. Kevin Baastalk: new 22:59, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
Please reference the broader vote/poll on Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory. Carbonite | Talk 23:02, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That broader vote was referenced many times during the Talk:Saddam_Hussein_and_Al-Qaeda vote, but to no avail. The majority at Talk:Saddam_Hussein_and_Al-Qaeda refuse to implement the consensus at Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory. Kevin Baastalk: new 12:01, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
Carbonite, a vote against one policy proposal does not create an opposite policy, especially when not explicity noted. The "broader" vote result was "keep conspiracy theory and related titles as is" and as a group we have done exactly that. However, I am starting to think it's time for a second vote on that policy proposal, though I'd rather people just discuss the merits and it doesn't look like people have changed much, except to get more hypocritical perhaps. zen master T 02:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck with this angle Kevin. zen master T 23:01, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to Carbonite, any comment on the watchlist page move "bugs"? Can you think of any "conspiracy theories" why the wikimedia developers changed watchlist behavior so? You should thank me for posting on the talk page here or else you wouldn't have noticed the renaming? though you must have been closely RC patrolling since new titles are not automatically added to your watchlist...? If a non vandalism change leads to discussion then that is progress, but if a change is intentionally made in the dark where no one sees it (especially given historic controversy) then that is the opposite of progress (even if it is a correct change/improvement). zen master T 23:01, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The intent of my move was to provoke discussion. I had wanted to move to ...complicity theories, but the redirect was spoiled, so i couldn't. In any case, the current policy regarding "conspiracy theory" in titles, developed at Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory (not to be confused with the theory that there was a conspiracy involved in the page move bug), has proved to be unenforceable. I moved the page to provoke discussion and to attempt to bring consistency between this article and the al-qaeda article. (which arguably deserves the title more than this article rather than to the same degree.) Kevin Baastalk: new 23:49, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

There are three non-hypocritical options here:

  1. title both articles w/ "conspiracy theory" - the page move vote failed, after a user controversially whipped a signifcant percentage of votes. In any case, tried once and failed.
  2. title neither articles w/"conspiracy theory" - what i am bringing to the table
  3. title al-qaeda w/"conspiracy theory" and this article without "conspiracy theory"- on the basis that this article does not meet the criteria discussed on the wikipedia:conspiracy theory page, whereas the al-qaeda article does.

If none of these options are feasible in the current atmosphere, then we will be forced revisit the issue on Wikipdia:Conspiracy theory. Kevin Baastalk: new 23:49, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

I'm assuming from the lack of objections after a very reasonable wait period that there are no further objections. Kevin Baastalk: new 23:22, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not going to support any version of this article without the word "conspiracy" in the title. Kevin, please don't try to sneak this title change under the radar. You know that this is a contentious topic, and you know that you are supposed to post your request on WP:RM. We've been over all of this before.. we discussed the title of this article and came to a consensus on the title "9/11 domestic complicity conspiracy theories". Rhobite 07:16, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
Wrong, we discussed the title of that article and that discussion migrated to Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory, in which it was concluded that we must be consistent and NPOV in how we apply the phrase "conspiracy theory" to titles. I'm not trying to sneak under the radar. How can you suggest that while simultaneously replying to the my very comment that informed everyone that i moved the page? I didn't know this was a contentious topic, no, because nobody, including you, disputed my last discussion points, so i could only assume that the matter was thereby resolved in agreement with them. Finally, regards your "support of any version of this article"... you are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but if you want your own article, wikipedia is not the place. Your arbitrary support or lack-thereof, not substantiated by any reasoning, is not the litmus test for wikipedia content. Wikipedia is a community that works via reason (it's not a democracy for the abuse of shoe-stompers) Kevin Baastalk: new 15:27, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
As before, since there is no ongoing discussion and no standing objections, I will move the page back to make it consistent with the de facto naming convention. Kevin Baastalk: new 14:10, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

As before, since there is no agreement for this move/title change, I have reverted it. Jayjg (talk) 08:54, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't work. Under that logic, someone who has no valid argument could "win out" over someone who has valid arguments up the wazoo, and all the person who has no valid argument would have to do is, well, nothing. Obviously, that's not an ideal situation, yet it's a situation that would occur often under the logic you propose. That's why that logic can't be used. Kevin Baastalk: new 14:53, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Consensus involves getting significant more people to agree with your position than disagree with it; you weren't able to do it before, and you obviously aren't able to do that now either. Jayjg (talk) 16:47, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what this is a reply to. Kevin Baastalk: new 17:54, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

It's a reply to your previous comment. Consensus doesn't imply unanimity, so an individual can't hold an article hostage, but it certainly implies a large majority. You weren't able to get a large majority to agree to the title change; in fact, you weren't able to get any sort of majority at all to agree to it. This title was arrived at by consensus; thus, your constant attempts to move this article to new titles of your own invention violate Wikipedia policy. Please desist. Jayjg (talk) 19:47, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The previous comment made no reference to consensus or unanimity. I still don't see how your reply logically ties into what I said. Kevin Baastalk: new 23:44, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidence theory in "see also"[edit]

I removed coincidence theory from see also as to not have puns making fun of the page linked to it. If the anon user who put it there wishes to do so again, please give your reasoning first. →ubεr nεmo lóquï 22:56, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

The term "coincidence theory" may have originated as a pun hitting at the pejorative connotation of "conspiracy theory," but now it has taken on a strong, clear antonymous meaning to "conspiracy theory" that is used widely as a means of counter-argument to those who deride so-called "conspiracy theories." It should be linked to here as an article that offers a contrary viewpoint.

If its not simply a pun its ok. →ubεr nεmo lóquï 05:08, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Transpiracy research[edit]

Am new to Wikipedia and still getting my sea legs before diving in. It's such a vast project with so many rules and guidelines and yet it tells me to "be bold" (titter)

Once I'm clearer on what's allowed and disallowed or discouraged here I will make a page with the above title, Transpiracy Research. It is my contention that there are two kinds of conspiracy theorists - those who "quit school" after Conspiracy Theory 101 and go home and watch X-Files videos, and those who graduate to the next higher level, Transpiracy Research.

Transpiracy researchers are not interested in David Icke's latest idea about "reptile masters", nor are their Bibles, if they even possess them or read them in the first place, are not full of thumbprints and creases in the Revelations chapter. They center their attention on what is commonly thought of as fact, which is to say consensus reality as expressed by a wide spectrum of news sources both mainstream and underground. Knowing about the flexible nature of reality, and about how easily any side of an issue can propagandise in this age, transpiracy researchers do their best to arrive at a consensus as to what transpired in a given situation, via paths governed by as little bias as possible.

This is not to say that they are successful at eliminating all bias from their work, as this is impractical if not impossible. There are some things that it is virtually impossible to discuss intelligently without bias.

I will submit my essay on this topic soon, but wanted to specifically ask if there's any way putting the information on 9/11 domestic complicity there as a sub-topic would violate any anti-redundancy efforts. Like I said: I am new, and very, very overwhelmed by all the rules, though not perturbed by them, just overwhelmed.

I definitely do disagree with the slant of this article. It seems Wikipedia might have arranged for some better way of presenting controversial issues. There's always going to be bias, but there's intelligent ways of presenting it, and less intelligent ones.

  • I appreciate your enthusiasm. As you are a newcomer, let me just point out that this is a somewhat controversial article and you might want to read up on this: Wikipedia:No original research. Welcome. --Noitall 03:54, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Redirect consensus?[edit]

Is there consensus to eliminate this article with a redirect to '9/11 conspiracy theories'? Because simply applying a redirect without consensus seems inappropriate, to say nothing of revert warring such a change without seeking consensus. -- RyanFreisling @ 02:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would just point out that unlike your edit summary implied, you do not need a VFD to make a redirect, and a VFD is not the only way to get consensus (in fact, it's a rather bad one). Dmcdevit·t 02:54, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
I would like to echo Dmcdevit's above sentiment. Kevin baas has been claiming that you cannot redirect an article without a VFD. This is blatantly untrue. →Raul654 02:56, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
I agree as well - VfD is certainly less desirable than an editor being bold - and more so, I understand full well the less-than-acceptable outcomes in which VfD's can result. Voting is bad - consensus is good. That having been said, you have a few editors opposing this redirect - it would seem from the conflicted response to the redirect that we should work for consensus on this article's status. I don't call for a VfD - I oppose this redirect without discussion. -- RyanFreisling @ 03:05, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite frankly puzzeled by both yours and Kevin's opposition. Neither of you have given an actual reason for opposing this change; you've both been opposing it based on your flawed understanding of the rules. There is no requirement for discussion prior to a merge or redirect; there is no requirement for a VFD. Talk pages are not permission forms; discussion for the sake of making discussion is pointless too. So unless you actual reason to oppose this, stop this rules-for-the-sake-of-rules complaining. →Raul654 03:10, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

My edit summary made no such implication, and I do understand the rules. If you want to redirect this page to another, obliterating it's contents and expecting the authors to merge its contents, that's fine. However, at least one other editor disagrees with that decision - leading me to question whether there is indeed consensus for this redirect. If your desire is to delete this page, then if other users disagree with it's deletion it should go thru VfD. It's very straightforward process, imho. My personal disagreement is that I believe this article is sufficiently distinct and specific to warrant existence separate from general 9/11 conspiracy theory, and I believe that is a rational disagreement with your redirect. We can hopefully find such consensus in the issues without attacking me as 'making discussion for discussion', or misstating my views of process. -- RyanFreisling @ 03:15, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that we have numerous substandard 9/11 conspiracy theory articles who value (both in terms of notability and quality) is marginal at best (as shown by the recent VFD of the 9/11 rumors and misinformation page, which resulted in a consensus to merge). Merging them into a single article is (as carbonite said) somethign that should have been done a long time ago. Or, to put it another way, creating a half-dozen conspiracy related articles was a stupid editing decision in teh first place. →Raul654 03:20, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
I don't disagree - I just think redirecting this article outright is the wrong decision - the most complex articles to merge, and those whose redirects are opposed (like this one) probably should get peer reviewed, rfc's, etc. rather than a redirect back and forth, or even a revert war. -- RyanFreisling @ 03:23, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my god. IF YOU DON'T DISAGREE, THEN DON'T COMPLAIN!" Saying that you agree with someone's edits but that they should have talked about it on the talk page first is absolutely senseless. Talk pages are not permission forms! Go read Wikipedia:Be bold!
Now, getting specifically to the points you address - The contents of two other 9/11 conspiracy articles have already been merged into 9/11 conspiracy theories. I have now merged the contents of this article there as well. I didn't use everything from this one, because that article is already too long and parts of this article are pathetically weak (the 'Stand-down order and War Games' section in particular). However, the heart of this article is now replicated there, and in a more organized form. →Raul654 03:41, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
Once again - you mistake me completely. Do you do so on purpose? I agree there are many 'crackpot' conspiracy articles - I disagree with your edit (the redirect) and ask you to avoid revert warring when other users oppose it in good faith. As far as the merge - in this case that article's bloat as a result of the material added from this article makes clear in my opinion the need for this article to stand alone. As far as 'pathetically weak', you'll have to excuse me if I don't exactly understand - can you restate your objection from an editorial point of view, or is it best that we work it out in this article space, as usual? -- RyanFreisling @ 03:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The articles need to be merged into one strong article outlining all the conspiracy theories, not the mess the existed before. As it was, there as duplication and nonsense everywhere. Jayjg (talk) 16:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A merge tag was placed by Carbonite - which was good for inspiring editing and merging - but now I think another redirect has been added, despite the thread above. Carbonite, can you let us know whether your merge tag addition still stands, or whether you've redirected the page outright? -- RyanFreisling @ 17:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with other editors that this page should be merged into 9/11 conspiracy theories. In addition, this page has been moved back (by Jayjg) to its previous title (9/11 domestic complicity conspiracy theories). There's a million redirects floating around (another good reason to have only one article), and I'm fixing them as I find them. Carbonite | Talk 17:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Kevin Baas, along with zen-master, has, for months, been objecting to any article which has "conspiracy theory" in the title. After previous move wars a vote was taken, and a large majority agreed that "conspiracy theory" was perfectly reasonable in the title of an article about conspiracy theories. Since then, Kevin Baas has, whenever he thinks no-one is noticing, been moving this article to titles of his own invention which do not contain the phrase "conspiracy theory", against the existing consensus. When challenged on this, he attempts to re-define the rather clear vote on this to mean something else. Nevertheless, this is the consensus title for the article, and here it will stay, until it is merged with the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. Or, rather, until that merger (which has already occurred) is somehow "ratified" here, in the absence of an "official Vfd". Jayjg (talk) 19:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Based on my own experience, I can support the factual accuracy of everything posted by Jayjg above. It is a shameful episode in terms of attempting to undermine the Wiki consensus process.--Cberlet 19:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Based on my own experience, I disagree heartily with the invective of the previous post, and ask that ALL participants discuss and attempt to resolve the issue in good faith. User:Kevin_baas deserves your assumption of good faith - he has never given me reason to question mine. Let's cut the personal attacks and attribution of 'shameful' behavior, knowing that there are two sides to every story - including this one. -- RyanFreisling @ 20:13, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good faith was given, abused, re-given, re-abused, re-given, battered, and finally ground underfoot in this particular case. Someone who unilaterally moves a page to a dozen different new names, against a clear consensus, has clearly lost any further presumption of good faith. If you're unfamiliar with the long history of this page and this issue, then please don't presume to comment on it. As for the issue, the page has been merged, what else is there to do but re-direct at this point? Jayjg (talk) 20:23, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have the option to suspend good faith. I have seen no RfC or RfA over the conduct you allege... no one has the right to abandon good faith. You can disagree strongly, but in this case you go too far. There are some (like me, at first glance) who find the current, bloated merge unsatisfactory, made mention of it here (as I did), requested a redirect not be placed until the issue could be resolved and a possible merge edited. -- RyanFreisling @ 20:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was attempting to discuss this article, but in order to do that, there needed to be a talk page, and since carbonite blanked the talk page and redirected it, i had to unblank it first. As soon as I unblanked the article and respective talk page, it got blanked again, this time by Raul654. So I unblanked it and went here to discuss it, but wo and behold, it was blanked again... Eventually I asked for page protection, so that I could finally discuss this issue. And I thank Ryan for stepping in and explaining to Jayjg, Carbonite, (and Raul?) due process. Kevin Baastalk: new 12:17, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
Kevin, this isn't a court of law, thus due process doesn't apply. The page was not deleted, so a VfD was not needed. Merges do not require votes, especially when they're reorganizing information from scattered articles into a singlt location. In any case, now that this talk page is available, I do expect to hear detailed reasons why this article shouldn't be merged with the main article. Carbonite | Talk 12:26, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion about the proposal to merg will come after the discussion about due process and what has transpired has come to resolution. Kevin Baastalk: new 21:49, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

And I'd also like to thank Jayjg, Carbonite, et al. for finally giving people the opportunity to object to their change. Kevin Baastalk: new 12:22, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
I'd also like to thank you, Kevin, for ceasing the unilateral page moves which caused redirects and double-redirects all over Wikipedia. Carbonite | Talk 12:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Unilateral" page moves is a false characterization - nobody had disputed the reasoning for the title changes - consistency, after I have solicited their opinions in discussion and waited for about a week. It is apparent that those who revert the moves towards title consistency have either no wish nor capability to justify their actions, or even discuss them. To say it is "unilateral" - when i say, for instance, loudly and clearly, "can anyone give me any reason why i shouldn't pick up this box?", and after a long wait, nobody peeps, and i pick up the box, now one of them cries "unilateral".
If you don't speak up, then be prepared to hold your peace. Do not expect or consider it just to get your way by staying silent when asked your opinion, and then blaming the person who asked for your opinion and didn't get it - precisely because you didn't give it - for not cooperationg. There is good reason to rename the page, and I have stated it, and noone has disputed the reasoning, but noone has so far given one good reason to keep it what it is, so I have done the reasonable thing, and renamed the page.
Now you believe the my moves were "unilateral", when they had support that i had clearly elucidated on the discussion page - either a manifestation of ignorance or disingenuousness - and you say that moving a page unilaterally is unacceptable - yet you have no problem with deleting a page unilaterally, when you do it. Why? Is it because you didn't discuss it, does that makes it okay? If I didn't state my reasoning and try to get you and jayjg to discuss it to no avail, then would it be okay for me to move the page, in your opinion? Please help me to understand. Your opinion of what is right and wrong is too complex for me to understand with the information I have now and my assumptions. Kevin Baastalk: new 21:49, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

(De-indenting) You can try to revise history any way you like; the fact remains, there was no consensus for removing "conspiracy theory" from the title then, and there is none now. In fact, a large majority of people opposed any such action. Furthermore, the article has been merged into 9/11 conspiracy theories. I believe that the hostage taking of these articles is finally reaching an end, as people are fed up with you and zen-master trying to impose your will on the majority, and are voting with their revert buttons instead. Jayjg (talk) 23:02, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I actually did not agree with the idea of merging all these articles, but it clearly was the will of a vast majority of editors. Democracy is based on majority rule with minority rights....not a temper tantrum by a tiny minority who relentlessly misrepresent reality to force their will on others.--Cberlet 23:07, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the outright deletion of this entire article. This article presents information and sources that are Not available on the page Jayjg made it redirect too. It also appears to be too large to merge. 19:07, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have come around on this and now support merging into 1 article. --Noitall 23:31, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Could certain people please stop deleting this article since there is no consensus for that? If it is going to be merged please leave it up until the merge happens. 02:41, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article has not been deleted, it has been merged and re-directed. There appears to be only one Wikipedia userid opposing this, and quite a number supporting it. Jayjg (talk) 03:13, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So where in the article you redirected to ( 9/11 conspiracy theories ) is there any mention of the information and sources provided in this article? Such as Delmart Vreeland and the Historical Precedent section? If this article was merged wouldn't that information be there? And now SlimVirgin has protected the page with the reason: "anon is trying to move the page" [3]. Well, I've put up an RfC to try and get some more input and hopefully a consensus on this. 03:39, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
User:Raul654 merged the article and re-directed; you should direct these queries to him. Jayjg (talk) 15:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is general discussion involving this article, rather than any particular individual, and as such belongs on the talk page of this article. Kevin Baastalk: new 02:37, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, use this Talk: page to direct queries to him. Jayjg (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And for those of us who can count and understand that wikipedia is not a democracy, please assume good faith and follow the process that is respectfully due. Kevin Baastalk: new 02:42, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
Exactly. Jayjg (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That comment was directed at you, Jayjg. Kevin Baastalk: new 23:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was more applicable to you. Jayjg (talk) 20:01, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the best way to resolve the confusion is to a) count the number of people on each side of the issue, and compare that to how different users have represented those numbers. b) look back over what people have said and see if what each given individual has said demonstrates comprehension of what wikipidia is not. c) .. d) ... e) good faith, due process, respect(civility)... Fortunately, these things are rather objective (especially a,b, and d), and therefore don't really involve much "thinking" per se - so in a sense, it is not so much a matter of what one person or another thinks, but of empirical phenomena. Kevin Baastalk: new 23:19, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! Yes, Kevin, why don't you go make "objective" judgements about those things, that will be amusing. Jayjg (talk) 23:22, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
for your amusement: counting (which doesn't belong in mathematics, because as you imply it's "subjective"): There are at least three people for discussing this, whereas you have suggested on multiple occasions that there is one person for discussing this (me). wikipedia is not a democracy: you have suggested on multiple occasions on this very talk page that wikipedia is a democracy, when wikipedia is clearly not. due process: due process is getting consensus from the community for major controversial changes, esp. deletes and/or merges. you, Carbonite, and Raul654 have muliplte times tried to bypass that, and in fact still continue to do so. Now this all might be funny if it wasn't real, which it is, so I don't see what you can possibly find amusing in it. I certainly don't find it amusing. Kevin Baastalk: new 12:13, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 19 September 2014[edit]

Could the following text:

[[Category:Protected redirects]]

...please be replaced with the following text:

{{R fully protected}} that the redirect is is put into the category via a tranclusion in an Rcat template rather than a category transclusion? Thanks! Steel1943 (talk) 06:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 09:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]