Talk:9/11 domestic complicity conspiracy theories/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Broken Link

The URL for the Vreeland note is no longer available. I currently cannot find this resource anywhere on the web, any help locating this resource and fixing the link would be much appreciated.

- I think the Vreeland material should be expunged -CKLN radio in Toronto basically exposed him as a fraud - an ex-con with a very lengthy criminal record who was in custody in St. Thomas, Canada on the date when he claimed to have met the diplomat who later died. Vreeland later failed to appear for his refugee hearing, and a warrant was issued. He was later arrested in Ohio in October of 2004.

- I think that the material should stay. Because of the well-established secrecy provisions of National Security Letters, gag orders, and government policy in general to cover-up, obstruct, etc., the number of independent sources who are able to document that the government might have known anything prior to September 11th is going to be very limited. The most important facts regarding Vreeland are not matters of Mr. Vreelands character, rather that most important fact (I think) regarding the Vreeland case is that it is pretty much not contested that the note Image:Delmart Vreeland Note.jpg is authentic, and is said to have been locked away in a safe in the possession of Candian authorities, following Vreelands arrest - prior to the September 11th attacks.

Now it is a fact that Senator Bob Graham in early 2004 made statements that the September 11th attack might have been predicted, or that it should have been possible to predict. Likewise, the 911 Commision report uses less strong terminolgy when it describes a Failure of imagination or makes other vague statements about the governments reliance on unrelaible sources, ignoring important sources, not sharing information or not connecting the dots. The role of an encylopedia of course should include finding out just what the dots are, for the sake of the historic record.

Lazarus666 19:09, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Vreeland stuff should be deleted. What are the sources of him 'verifying' his employment with a switchboard? This page has some interest stuff on Vreeland

Broken Talk URL

This is a broken title: the "9/" prefix causes it to be treated as a subpage of the page "9", since the slash character is directory delimiter. --FOo

does that really matter? Susan Mason

the original title was the picket term Bush Knew. use that if you want.
what about "9-11 ..."?

More on this story

Talk:Bush family conspiracy theory and Talk:Bush Knew contain more on the history of this article.

Related conspiracies

Another somewhat popular German views of consipracy: see Current events (July 23, 2003). --Menchi 17:37 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Page being moved

I put several times this on 9/11 conspiracy theory and each time, there is some one to remove this, without explanation:

Some engineers speak about strange collaps of twin towers and 6 towers of WTC. For them, there's very low probability than a tower collaps perfectly vertically, and 3 towers do it. Some ingeeners think there was explosives in this buildings. See link below http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=25146 about explosive in WTC. What to do in this case, is it the wrong place?

I corrected some errors, Is it OK to put on page? 62.212.110.113 10:04, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Not without more than "rumour mill" backing. The evidence presently in the article is solid. It shouldn't be sullied with a lot of easy-to-dismiss crap. Sorry, but no.
What about the many sound analyses showing that the officially-described fire could come nowhere near the first critical temp of steel?
I'm not aware of these "many sound analyses," since almost every source that I've checked has claimed that the impact and the burning jet fuel would alone have been sufficient to destroy the internal structure of the impacted floors.

I sincerely wonder why you're even branding all factual information we know as truth to be a 'domestic conspiracy theory'. If anything, this should ALL be moved to the 9/11 main section, and put on top (it's THAT important). Really, what are you trying to prove? The facts are all out in the open:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/DAV407A.html

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&theme=coverup

Getting Away With Mass Murder would be an appropriate title for the next Michael Moore documentary, that 9/11 Commission Report was a joke, and we all know it. Now, Brittanica would get paid to outcast us all as conspiracy weirdo's freaking out, wikipedia should not follow, we don't get paid, and certainly don't intend to cover up these horrendous crimes.

Oh, and let's not forget some rarely known facts:

In the days before 9/11, unknown traders bought unusually high “put options” in the stock of United Airlines, American Airlines, and the WTC tenants and reinsurers. This meant that the traders expected the prices of these equities to plunge in the short term. The volumes of the purchases may have activated a known CIA real-time tracing program designed to discover suspicious trades (PROMIS). The FBI later claimed it had determined the identities of the traders in the U.S., but says they are in the clear and declines to name them. Many of the known trades were transacted through A.B. Brown. The chairman of that bank, Mayo Shattuck, conveniently resigned on September 12 (oh coincidence much?). In the case of one trade, the buyer left $2.5 million uncollected for months after the attacks. Financial authorities in Frankfurt and Tokyo and an intelligence bureau in Israel also reported suspicious trades and initially characterized these as smoking guns that would lead back to the masterminds of 9/11. To our knowledge there has been no public follow-up to these statements since. In London, authorities said they traced the trades back to an unnamed “small airline” that was pursuing a “hedging strategy” (IHT, 9/20/01).

Roosevelt knew

widespread belief that the US government had advance knowledge of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor It's my understanding that Robert Stinnett's Day of Deceit leaves no room to think anything else. Stinnett used FOIA to get declassified material which altogether shows the Whitehouse not only knew it was coming, but had been following a plan by McCollum to draw the Japanese into attacking, and interfered with those "not in the loop" who were trying to prevent it. Stinnet also claims he, personally, believes Roosevelt was doing the right thing in the long run - ie this is not an attempt to run FDR down. --kwantus

Yes, that is as I understand it too. Feel free to replace the statement with the more accurate and exact citation with the named source above. If you can write a capsule review of Day of Deceit, and a bio of Robert Stinnett, so much the better. See Gary Sick and October Surprise for an example of how to treat such essential and unique sources. It doesn't take much, but the separate article lets it be referenced cleanly in other articles, on WWII, military intelligence, etc.
It's fairly clear from history that leaders, especially in democracies, often fake large scale scary events, or fail to prevent them, in order to justify seizures of power. If Hitler and FDR did it, why wouldn't Bush or someone hiding in the shadows? Then there is all the JFK theories, of which a simple coup d'etat on Johnson's behalf is most credible - kind of irrelevant who pulled triggers, or "why", if that word even applies to this kind of dissolved responsibility.

Text removed

I removed a large chunk of text, the evidence section. The evidence primarily deals with intelligence failures and facts unrelated to what the article introduction purports the article is about, a conspiracy to allow 9/11 to happen or to directly cause it to happen. Please feel free to comment.

One other note, the evidence text was also horribly POV and instead of writing about the conspiracy theory and so on, it actively presented a POV of conspiracy and cover-up. Daniel Quinlan 00:36, Dec 9, 2003 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with about all you are saying here. The piece is decent and belongs here. Most of it is pure fact. Put it back, please.

Actual evidence of a 9/11 domestic conspiracy to commit or cover up major intelligence failures related to the attacks includes

Michael Meacher, a British MP, writes in The Guardian, that "US authorities did little or nothing to pre-empt the events of 9/11. It is known that at least 11 countries provided advance warning to the US of the 9/11 attacks. Two senior Mossad experts were sent to Washington in August 2001 to alert the CIA and FBI to a cell of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation (Daily Telegraph, September 16 2001). The list they provided included the names of four of the 9/11 hijackers, none of whom was arrested. It had been known as early as 1996 that there were plans to hit Washington targets with aeroplanes. Then in 1999 a US national intelligence council report noted that "al-Qaida suicide bombers could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the CIA, or the White House". "Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers obtained their visas in Saudi Arabia. Michael Springman, the former head of the American visa bureau in Jeddah, has stated that since 1987 the CIA had been illicitly issuing visas to unqualified applicants from the Middle East and bringing them to the US for training in terrorism for the Afghan war in collaboration with Bin Laden (BBC, November 6 2001). It seems this operation continued after the Afghan war for other purposes. It is also reported that five of the hijackers received training at secure US military installations in the 1990s (Newsweek, September 15 2001)." "Instructive leads prior to 9/11 were not followed up. French Moroccan flight student Zacarias Moussaoui (now thought to be the 20th hijacker) was arrested in August 2001 after an instructor reported he showed a suspicious interest in learning how to steer large airliners. When US agents learned from French intelligence he had radical Islamist ties, they sought a warrant to search his computer, which contained clues to the September 11 mission (Times, November 3 2001). But they were turned down by the FBI. One agent wrote, a month before 9/11, that Moussaoui might be planning to crash into the Twin Towers (Newsweek, May 20 2002)." "All of this makes it all the more astonishing - on the war on terrorism perspective - that there was such slow reaction on September 11 itself. The first hijacking was suspected at not later than 8.20am, and the last hijacked aircraft crashed in Pennsylvania at 10.06am. Not a single fighter plane was scrambled to investigate from the US Andrews airforce base, just 10 miles from Washington DC, until after the third plane had hit the Pentagon at 9.38 am. Why not? There were standard FAA intercept procedures for hijacked aircraft before 9/11. Between September 2000 and June 2001 the US military launched fighter aircraft on 67 occasions to chase suspicious aircraft (AP, August 13 2002). It is a US legal requirement that once an aircraft has moved significantly off its flight plan, fighter planes are sent up to investigate. " "Was this inaction simply the result of key people disregarding, or being ignorant of, the evidence? Or could US air security operations have been deliberately stood down on September 11? If so, why, and on whose authority? The former US federal crimes prosecutor, John Loftus, has said: "The information provided by European intelligence services prior to 9/11 was so extensive that it is no longer possible for either the CIA or FBI to assert a defence of incompetence." "Nor is the US response after 9/11 any better. No serious attempt has ever been made to catch Bin Laden. In late September and early October 2001, leaders of Pakistan's two Islamist parties negotiated Bin Laden's extradition to Pakistan to stand trial for 9/11. However, a US official said, significantly, that "casting our objectives too narrowly" risked "a premature collapse of the international effort if by some lucky chance Mr Bin Laden was captured". The US chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, General Myers, went so far as to say that "the goal has never been to get Bin Laden" (AP, April 5 2002). The whistleblowing FBI agent Robert Wright told ABC News (December 19 2002) that FBI headquarters wanted no arrests. And in November 2001 the US airforce complained it had had al-Qaida and Taliban leaders in its sights as many as 10 times over the previous six weeks, but had been unable to attack because they did not receive permission quickly enough (Time Magazine, May 13 2002). None of this assembled evidence, all of which comes from sources already in the public domain, is compatible with the idea of a real, determined war on terrorism."

Atypical conspiracy theory

This doesn't seem like a typical conspiracy theory in that facts are often used; however it doesn't seem likely, not because the government wouldn't want to pull it off, but they couldn't get away with it.

Wikipedia is infested with leftists. It's annoying. Trey Stone 07:54, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oh give us a break! This has NOTHING to do with politics, with being left-wing or right-wing, it has everything to do with Bush being an asshole bully type of leader lying his ass off about half of the time he says things in public. Julius 11:49, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There's nothing leftist about conspiracy theories, only something nutty. Most conspiracy theories come from extreme right-wing groups. Threy Stone, your totalitarian approach to people with views different from yours is nicely expressed with the word "infested", a description normally used for vermin. pir 11:59, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Since when does talking about conspiracy theory suddenly put you on the left of the political spectrum? People from all over the spectrum believe in these theories. Remember, Hitler thought the Jews were responsible for Germany's loss in WW1 and the (hated) Weimar Republic, and he was far to the right. -anon

In cases like this (and Michael Moore films, Clinton killed his cabinet films, etc) - it is a highly politically motivated conspiracy theory. People that believe this nonsense bend over backwards to believe it because they have a vested interest in it being true. Wacko republicans want to believe that Clinton killed people, so any flimsy evidence will do. Wacko Democrats want to believe that Bush is simultaneously an idiot AND an evil genius, so any flimsy evidence will do. It is a political conspiracy theory because the hatred of Bush drives it. If you don't believe me, find someone that believes this BS that doesn't hate Bush.
Response: This isn't just about Bush: scores of his associates have possible ties to these theories, so there's no need to define Bush as either an idiot OR an evil genius. Though I don't consider Bush the best man from the job, he certainly isn't an evil genius and I don't hate him; I do believe that the blame for this, at best, gross incompetence is on Bush. The legitimate points made here aren't the sole product of liberal Bush-haters: numerous, hard-core Republicans have expressed extreme suspicion and disgust with the whole affair,

Reading over this article for the first time, I see several problems. For example, in the second paragraph it points to the considerable evidence that al-Qaida was involved in the attacks as evidence against the theory (really theories which are being lumped together here). But many who find truth in "conspiracy theories" about 9/11 believe that al-Qaida was working together with forces in the US establishment, so this should not be presented as necessarily being a contradiction and is at least a little misleading. Also, the lumping together of the various versions of the theory is somewhat troublesome, as there is no real care taken to distinguish them; this is especially problematic regarding the anti-Semitic version. Everyking 12:48, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I removed the second paragraph as it presents several inacurate or unsubstantiated claims. First, I think evidence should be presented before any claims are made that most conspiricy theory buffs reject this particuler 9/11 conspircy theory. I've yet to see any data either supporting or contridicting this claim. Also the reasons stated for why the theory has been rejected by most conspiricy buffs would not apply to the more common version of the theory that suggests the Bush administration was working with Al Quada. Ultimately, this article probebly needs to be rewritten to seperate the variouse conspiricy theories. Evidence for and against should be clear as to what version of the theory it applies to. -Cab88

Abso-frikin-lutely Unbelievable

It's unbelievable that Wikipedia actually still considers itself to be a serious, believable source of information while simultaneously entertaining this kind of insanity. Someone who isn't completely detached from reality needs to edit this article to at least mention all the reasons why it's so incredibly absurd, and why any normal, sane person wouldn't believe this kind of garbage. Wikipedia does itself a great disservice by providing this much detailed information about something that is little more than intellectual sewage. If there even really are moderators for Wikipedia, they should be embarassed. Actively promoting, encouraging, and propagating the belief in wild-eyed, raving, delusional left-wing conspiracy theories not only cheapens and demeans the true horror of 9/11, but it's also greatly insulting to the victims of that tragedy and their families. It's also scary to think that some truly ignorant person out there might actually believe this rot and become confused as to who the real enemies are--or even worse, take up arms with the people who really ARE trying to murder innocent Americans, thus making this article and others like it an inderect cause for more mass murder. 9/11 is not something to be joking around with like this, although I know that to the people who are sick enough to seriously believe this stuff it's no joke at all...to those people I have only to say, seek help, please, for everyone's sake.

I'll tell you one thing though: this article and others like it does just go to show what I've said for a long time, that people believe whatever they want to believe, and they won't let little things like facts, common sense, or the truth get in the way. If someone wants to weave together a bunch of coincidences, half-truths, rumors, or even outright lies into something that jives with their already established pre-conceptions of reality, they will most certainly do so. It doesn't matter that America's intelligence agencies are not nearly competent enough to pull off something of this magnitude...it doesn't matter that there are inherent contradictions within the theories itself, and even variants upon what the details and/or "facts" are. Was the Bush Administration looking for an excuse to go after al-Qaeda, or were they working together with Al-Qaeda? Why would Osama bin Ladin take credit for an attack he didn't commit? Why would the Bush Administration allow itself to go through the political embarassment of not finding WMDs in Iraq, which almost cost them the damn election, if it knew in advance there were none to begin with? In that case, why not just plant the damn weapons (which I'm 100% sure you would have accused them of if weapons had been found, affecting your contorted theories none), to make it seem as if your point has been proven to the world? Because Bush is an idiot, I suppose? Oh, but if Bush is an idiot, then how did he come up with all these grandiose schemes? Oh, because Bush is just a puppet...it's really Cheney, Rumsfeld, Halliburton, the JOOOS....well then why didn't those people plant the weapons? I guess because they're even more stupid as Bush is. Well even then stil I don't think they'd be stupider than you for actually buying into this crap.

And perhaps this is the point when the typical Moorist liberal's head explodes, or when he just plugs his fingers in his ears and starts humming really loud.......these people are determined to believe what they want to believe...all rational thought notwitstanding. This is why the term idiotarian was coined.

Get it through your thick, brainwashed, cannabis-soaked heads: The people who are responsible for 9/11, as well as FIVE OF THE SIX major attacks against American targets throughout the 1990s, were terrorists, AL-QAEDA, Osama bin Ladin and his henchmen. HE is the evil one, HE is the mass murderer, HE is the genocidal maniac, HE is the one who hatched the great conspiracy--not George W. Bush. You want to talk about conspiracies? Let's talk about the 30 year old connection between the French government and Saddam, the billions of dollars that were stolen through the UN Oil for Food scandal, the Saudis offering Bin Ladin to BJ Clinton on a silver platter but him not taking it because it would have been politically incorrect, and because the fucking bastard didn't give a shit about the people, the country, or the constitution he took an oath to serve....explain the bombing of Iraq the day the Starr Report was released, Clinton and Kerry giving nuclear secrets to China and North Korea, the gutting of the CIA, the slashing of the military...you want to know why 9/11 happened? Because you elected a draftdodging powerhungry lecherous amoral idiot as President and kept him in office for 8 sordid years. A president who cared jack shit about the freedom of people in the Middle East, and used them only as a means to an end. A president who let the whims of foreign leaders determine his foreign policy, a president who was an isolationist, and a coward, and an all-around sorry, dispicable sack of flesh excuse for a human being. If you want someone to blame for the deaths of those 3000 people, blame him, blame Bin Ladin, or better yet, blame yourselves. Blame yourselves for being such idiots. The only thing you're right about is that America brought those attacks upon ourselves--by having our heads stuck in the sand for eight embarrassing and shameful years.

People like you are the reason why the Democratic Party is a dying institution. Andrew Jackson, Woodrow Wilson, and Lyndon Johnson were the greatest mass-murderers in American history; Grover Cleveland and FDR were the closest to fascist dictators that we've ever had. Compared to them, George W. Bush is the benevolent savior of this godforsaken country, and the world, especially seeing as how his administration has brought the much-ignored brutality of the Taliban and the Baathists to an end and given hope for freedom and democracy to over 50 million people. Why is it that liberals only care about mass murder and oppression when they feel that it's Americans who are respobsible for it? WHY THE HELL DO YOU HATE THIS COUNTRY SO DAMN MUCH? Ultimately, it doesn't matter. At the end of the day, I don't care. On November 2 the people spoke, and at long last the party of the Trail of Tears, slavery, the KKK, World War I, internment, segregation, and Vietnam is being torn down with a vengeance that can only be drawn from the angry spirits of the tens of millions who are dead by their hands. After all the atrocities Democrats have committed in their history, after all the manipulation, after all the deciet, after all the selfishness, the racism, the power-grabs, the genocide, the exploitation...all I have to say is thank God and good riddence. I'm glad to see you'll be your own undoing. I'm glad to see that America is finally waking up from your 27 decades of lies.

---

Wow, that was a really impressive rant, man. You kept that going for a while. Everyking 03:39, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


If you liked this page, you'll love vampire watermelon. - Nunh-huh 03:43, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


You know, you are right that someone needs to put arguments in the article as to why this is all absurd, in fact, why this is a conspiracy theory and not a generally accepted possibility. You know what? You should do it. If you put 10% of the effort you put in this rant into fixing the article, it would have been much more constructive.

UnHoly 16:48, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Wow, that was pretty funny man, I'd pay to see you up on stage! If you really do care about america, and about its people, then you should see the story from both sides. Please watch this free 2 hour video. It isn't a bunch of propaganda, it has cold, hard, undenyable FACTS! Don't believe me? You'll just have to see it for yourself, and make your own conclusion! Movie: http://www.archive.org/movies/details-db.php?id=6061 . I'm sorry that all this Red vs. Blue political bullshit goes on! But just remember, Bush dodged the draft aswell!

Klipper 0:05, 30 Jan 2005 (EST)


When I get some more free time and motivation, I'm gonna contribute to some of the 9/11 related articles here. For now I'll just say a few things...

It's funny how some people like to maintain that they don't believe in conspiracy theories. The official story of 9/11 is itself a conspiracy theory - it just happens to have the backing of the government and media. We're told that 19 arab men - directed by some guy in a cave in Afganistan conspired to attack America. We needn't be bothered by the fact that at least four of these men have been reported alive since then in the mainstream British press...

Most American liberals believe that Bush has been involved in a number of conspiracies. (They just don't call them that.) They believe he conspired (with his brother Jeb, Katherine Harriss, etc.) to steal the 2000 election, they believe that he conspired (with Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, etc.) to lie to the American people and decieve them into going along with the invasion of Iraq. A good number even believe that he conspired (with electronic voting machine company executives and Republican opperatives in Ohio and maybe elsewhere) to steal the 2004 election. Yet so many of these same people are the first to yell "conspiracy theory!" when anyone tries to get to the bottom of 9/11.

Well I'm running out of steam tonight, so I'll end for now with just one more point. To answer that wise guy's question as to why Bush and Co. haven't planted WMDs in Iraq - I don't know. There are a number of plausible reasons. They may have done it to establish more creddibility, so that next time they can plant WMDs - in Iran or where ever they decide to invade next and people will believe them. They may have been afraid they would get caught - because agencies from other countries might demand to verify that the weapons were really Iraqi in origin. Or for all I know they may have done that specifically so that wise guys like the poster above could make that kind of argument ("Look, of course they didn't engineer 9/11, they didnt' even plant WMD in Iraq.") And this all fits perfectly with Hitler's Big Lie Theory - people are likely to question a more minor deception, but a really big one is hard for them to fathom....And what would be the need to plant WMD in Iraq - if you can still rally the American people with fear of terrorism due to 9/11?

It's worked pretty well for them so far...

--Blackcats 07:00, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Historical Precedent

For that part of the article, I think it might be advisable to add the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. I'd do it, but I'm about to fall asleep. If I remember to do it later and it's not already done, I will.

Title of this article is very POV

Stating something is a "conspiracy theory" gives no chance of any evidence ever relating to the issue ever being taken seriously, which is especially problematic if additional evidence should appear in the future. Wikipedia articles should present information neutrally and not discourage readers from actually thinking about the details and evidence of the issue themselves. The determination of what a conspiracy theory is and is not should be left as a excersize to the reader. In this article's case, if there is any dispute about the possibility some sort of domestic group was at least indirectly involved in 9/11 (and I am arguging such a dispute does exist) then the title of this article is definitely POV and much of the article needs to be rewritten to conform to a more neutral tone. zen master T 21:53, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I certainly agree. In fact there's no dispute as to the fact that 9/11 was the result of a conspiracy, the only disagreement is to who exactly the conspirators were: Arab Muslim extreamists, people within the US government, people in other governments, people who are none of the above, or some combination of the above groups. The official account of what happened on 9/11 is not less a conspiracy than any other, it simply has the backing of the government and mainstream media.

The real opperative word in "conspiracy theory" is "theory," which has a somewhat abiguous meaning. For instance in biology and other sciences, the word "theory" can be used to describe a belief supported by a perponderence of the evidence - ie. the "theory of evolution." But in more common usage it often has a strong subtext which basically says "this idea is merely theoretical, there's no real evidence to support it." When that's certainly not the case with high level government compicity in 9/11 - just check out The New Pearl Harbor, by Claremont proffesor David Ray Griffin, endorsed by reknowned historian Howard Zinn.

So getting back to the situation here at Wikipedia, I think a few things need to be done - one the main September 11th article needs to be challenged for NPOV. If there's a dispute among scholorars of an event as to what exactly happened, then stating the belief of one faction as fact while relegating the beleifs of the other to a more minor article like this is certainly not NPOV. Also, I think we need an article about the 9/11 Truth Movement, to inform people about the organized campaign to question the official story.

This could all be quite an undertaking, but I'm willing to start working on it, and hopefully others will join me. --Blackcats 06:54, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am game to help out, though I disagree with a statement you implied, "conspiracy theory" figuratively does not mean just some people conspiring, the definition has been co-opted to mean something along the lines of "crazy person theory" or "totally debunked theory" or "a random combination of various dubious theories with no context to anything" etc etc which is perhaps why the phrase is apparently being used with increased regularity by some users of wikipedia. zen master T 07:08, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I'm well aware that that's the generally accepted use of the phrase "conspiracy theory," I was merely reiterating the analysis of some in the 9/11 Truth Movement, particuarly David Ray Griffin, who points out that the official story of 9/11 is in fact a conspiracy theory, one which simply has the backing of the government and media. He goes on to point out that not only does the official story meet the most technical definition of a "conspiracy theory," it also meets the more popular deffinition of a theory with no real evidence to support it. But anyway, I'll soon post an NPOV dispute tag on the main September 11, 2001 attacks article (if you haven't done so already. So keep watchin that page... --4.244.105.46 18:56, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
As I just recently stated on the talk page for the Misinformation and rumors about the September 11, 2001 attacks article no title should use the term "conspiracy theory". Wikipedia's own definition of conspiracy theory shows it to not be neutral, and even worse the phrase connotes that the subject is "unworthy of being taken seriously". If a subject is worthy of wikipedia inclusion then it should be worthy of being taken seriously, if only to then be able to effectively debunk it using facts, unambiguous words, and citations (whenever possible). This applies to obviously untrue rumors as well, a user should always be encouraged to consider all subjects worthy of being taken seriously if only then for the user to be able to logically conclude or agree that the subject is indeed dubious. What problems do you see with the main 9/11 article? In my opinion whatever problems exist there are seperate from the fundamental title problems with these 9/11 articles. Please do not confuse your controversy with the main 9/11 article with my criticisms of the errantly titled 9/11 rumor articles. zen master T 19:12, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)


ZM, I fully agree with you that the phrase "conspiracy theory" should not be included in titles. My issues with the main 9/11 article, and other articles on here, while not exactly the same as the issue you're raising, are closely related - or at least symptoms of the same general problem. The problem is basically that something can simply be labeled as "conspiracy theory" and it is then simply assumed that the allegations or evidence must not be valid. Getting to my problems with all the 9/11 articles, particuarly the main one, the problem is that the official story of 9/11 is reguarly stated as indisputed fact, when that is far from the case. I'll cite some evidence here - not so much directly about 9/11 itself, but rather evidence that enough people and enough noteworthy people have questioned of the offical story of 9/11, that such questioning should not be arbitarilly dismissed and ignored by Wikipedia:
  • A Zogby poll in the Summer of '04 (following the release of the 9/11 Commission Report) found that about 50% of New Yorkers believe that the Bush administration at least intentionally allowed the attacks to happen. While two thirds felt that there should be a further probe into questions that the Commission failed to answer. [1]
  • David Ray Griffin, a respected Claremont proffesor and author of many books, has written two books which take a close look at creddible evidence of high-level US government complicity in the 9/11 attacks: The New Pearl Harbor and The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions And Distortions. They've been endorsed by such prominent people as Howard Zinn, a famous historian and best-selling author, and Richard Falk, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (Not that i'm a fan of the CFR, but it is an example of the caliber of people who have questioned the official story of 9/11). Mr. Falk also wrote the forward to Griffin's first book on this subject.
So while all this will likely not convince many people here that the idea of US gvt complicity in 9/11 is not absurd, it should (hopefully) be enough to convince them that those beliefs deserve a fairer presentation here and that it is not NPOV to state the official story of 9/11 as if it were indisputed fact. --Blackcats 00:14, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Here are some possible titles I just proposed on the Misinformation and rumors about the September 11, 2001 attacks's talk page, some likely will need tweaking and some are mutually exclusive with another suggestion. Are you saying 9/11 criticism information has effectively been excluded from wikipedia or relegated to "conspiracy theory" articles???

  • Initial reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks <-- This article would cover just the initial reactions and aftermath (1 to 2 weeks), both true and false facts and rumors, perfect for things like errant initial estimates on the number of casualties etc.
  • Allegations of 9/11 domestic conspiracy
  • Allegations of 9/11 cover up
  • Criticisms of the 9/11 commission
  • 9/11 controversy <-- this could be main article
  • 9/11 theories
  • Disputed evidence of the September 11, 2001 attacks or "List of evidence..."
  • Allegations of Israel involvement in 9/11
  • Allegations of Saudi Arabia involvement in 9/11
  • Allegations of stock fraud relating to 9/11
  • Allegations of war profiteering after the 9/11 attacks
  • Allegations of Anthrax attacks domestic conspiracy <-- let's not forget about this one
  • etc zen master T 00:31, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


(In response to your question) - Yes, I feel that enough people and enough prominent people have called into question the offical story of 9/11, that to present that account as indisputed fact is not NPOV. At the very least, the main 9/11 article needs to have a disclaimer at the top which says something like "This article recounts what has generally been the accepted account of what happened on 9/11. For information on other accounts of what happened, please see such and such page." (And that page would then link to the various pages which present a questioning of the official story.) Ideally though, I'd like to see at least some of the evidence cited by critics mentioned in the main 9/11. The idea of Wikipedia is supposed to be to present both sides of any debate and let the readers make up their own mind, but as it is currently stands, the presentation is very much biased in favor of the official account.
As for your suggested new titles, they are clearly a big improvement over what we currently have. One issue I still would have though is with "Allegations of 9/11 domestic conspiracy." That's a little too vague, as a "domestic conspiracy" could mean one by radical Muslims or other "extreamists" within the United States. A better way to put it would be "Allegations of high level government compicity in the 9/11 attacks." This would then be broken down (either through sections or separate articles) into the two main branches of those allegations - LIHOP (Let It Happen On Purpose) and MIHOP (Made It Happen On Purpose). Thanks again for noticing the lack of NOPV on this issue - it's something that I had noticed a while back and had been meaning to work on. --Blackcats 04:30, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)


WP:NPOV policy does not demand that all views be given an equal airing; in particular, "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." Jayjg (talk) 04:33, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Jayjg, If you had read what I had posted above, you would have seen that I'm explicity contesting the assertion that any viewpoint which questions the official story of 9/11 is only "held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority." 50% of New Yorkers believing that the US gvt. at least let 9/11 happen on purpose hardly seems insignificant to me! Please look at the results of this poll, conducted by Zogby and posted on their website. [3] I've also heard about nation-wide polls being conducted in places like Canada and Germany with similar results. I'll try to get those posted soon. --Blackcats 04:42, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, yes, polls, and half of New Yorkers in 2004. I did read what you said above. Polls say all sorts of things, depending on how they are worded, and I supposed a good percentage of Americans believe that man hasn't landed on the moon, and that Elvis is still alive. However, NPOV works in conjunction with other policies like Wikipedia:Cite your sources; you need some authoritative references for each of these conspiracy theories, not just random feelings of uninformed Americans cited in dubious opinion polls. Jayjg (talk) 04:53, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Jayjg, let's go ahead and resolve the issue of whether or not those questioning the official story of 9/11 are indeed "an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority" before we move on to other issues like citing sources. In same WP guide you quoted from, it also says: "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents." And that was just what I was doing. I can go ahead and name some more if you would like. I'm also more than happy (once this issue is settled) to cite a ton of authoritative references to suuport all of the allegations, but as ZM pointed out, when you brand them as "conspiracy theories" that's undue prejudice. That's sort of like saying "give me some concrete evidence that your lies are true." --Blackcats 05:45, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
PS - I found that Canadian poll, originally published in the Toronto Star. "Indeed, a majority of Canadians doubt the line out of Washington. A poll conducted for the non-profit inquiry (http://www.911inquiry.org) this month shows that 63 per cent of us believe the U.S. government had "prior knowledge of the plans for the events of September 11th, and failed to take appropriate action to stop them.""[4]
The issue here is not whether people have some vague feeling that something was going on, but rather about specific conspiracy theories. One cannot create a page filled with anything that happens to come to mind, and then justify it by saying "well, most people think something was going on." Specific conspiracy theories need specific documentation from reasonable sources. And random webpages alleging whatever the webpage author dreams up don't count. Jayjg (talk) 22:32, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Blackcats, I say we just go create the new appropriately titled 9/11 controversy articles, cleaning up and/or removing the current "conspiracy theory" articles can be handled later. If there is resistance the main 9/11 article may have to link to 2+ places for a while. I agree allegations of conspiracy surrounding 9/11 are both worthy of wikipedia inclusion and worthy of being taken seriously. zen master T 05:33, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

ZM - I agree that's a good idea. I'll deffinately work on that with you and I'll contact some other knowlegable people to help. The new articles should strive to maintain the highest standards of research. I think if they do that and they're not cluttered up with all the various straw-man theories and other bs then it can be quite succsessful and will hopefully convince everyone that questioning of the official story does indeed need to be addressed in the main 9/11 article.
What you consider to be "straw-man theories", others consider to be "The Truth". And when you're doing that "research", please make sure it's not original research. Jayjg (talk) 22:32, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I've seen the "original research" argument used to try to exclude content from wikipedia a number of times previously, I believe it has been debunked, anything that is critical of an official position is not original research as long as the "allegation" or "criticism" can be cited to somewhere outside of wikipedia. zen master T 22:51, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Read the policy carefully; it has not been "debunked", but rather is a firm policy of Wikipedia. Yes, it is not original research so long as it can be sourced, but there are also standards for quality of sources. Random web pages, for example, do not meet that standard. Jayjg (talk) 23:24, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Just for the sake of clarity, I am not proposing the lowering of wikipedia citation standards, on the contrary, I am proposing the enforcement of, or, an increase in, title neutrality. Everything blackcats mentioned is appropriately cited for example, do you disagree? zen master T 00:03, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Which specific theories do you think he has cited appropriately? Jayjg (talk) 00:15, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well, 911truth.org info, and allegations of U.S. government complicity. But the better question to ask is into which articles should valid criticisms of the official 9/11 investigation go? It seems such content really has been relegated to the "conspiracy theory" and "misinformation and rumors" articles, which is not only a tragedy, but also very suspicous. zen master T 00:36, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
What makes these theories more "valid" than any other theory? Why is having them in their respective articles a "tragedy" and "suspicious"? Jayjg (talk) 16:17, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Those theories and allegations are validly cited, it should be left as an excersize to the reader to determine what is a valid theory. In total it seems obvious that whomever designed the various 9/11 "conspiracy theory" and "misinformation and rumor" articles did so with the intent of trying to undermine all such 9/11 criticisms. We need an article on Allegations of 9/11 coverup within Wikipedia :-) zen master T 16:24, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As this article does not describe a theory of a conspiracy, "conspiracy theory" is an inaccurate and misleading title. "complicity theory" or "controversy" would be more appropriate. The theory is not that the U.S. took part in 9/11 (which would be a conspiracy), but that they knew about it and did not try to prevent it (this is called complicity). This theory actually has some decent substantiation, such as intelligence reports and the stated goals of members in the adminstration. I can also add that I talked to a person who was on a base in new york, around the time of 9/11 (either late 9/10 or early 9/11, i forget), and they knew something was up before the planes were hijacked. But I digress, the point is, the theory is a theory of complicity, not conspiracy, and that's a very important distinction. Kevin Baastalk: new 07:31, 2005 May 2 (UTC) (moved from wrong page Kevin Baastalk: new)

According to the first sentence in this article, "complicity" is more proper than "conspiracy", but "connivance" seems the most accurate. (thou it sounds, at least to me, stronger than complicity) Kevin Baastalk: new 08:07, 2005 May 2 (UTC)

domestic complicity theory is better. zen master T 08:11, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
optionally, also "tacit consent", though it's even more akward. than connivance. I think that domestic complicity theory is the best out of all of these, too. Kevin Baastalk: new 08:14, 2005 May 2 (UTC)

Title vote (various options)

See also Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories and Talk:AIDS conspiracy theories.
See esp. Wikipedia:Conspiracy_theory.

9/11 domestic complicity conspiracy theories

  1. 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. Jayjg (talk) 15:46, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  2. Agree with the above. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:29, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
  3. The most precise expression for the phenomena. Moreover, "conspiracy theory" is an term that's actually used. We ought consider this per our policy against original research. Cool Hand Luke 17:03, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  4. I agree with what's been said above. The title is a bit long than ideal, but it's accurate. Carbonite | Talk 17:52, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  5. I'll support this one too. It's important to have the word "conspiracy" in the title. Rhobite 12:51, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
  6. I agree. Accurate and precise. I would also support "9/11 domestic complicity conspiracy claims."--Cberlet 13:26, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
  7. I agree. -Willmcw 06:16, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

9/11 domestic conspiracy theory

  1. Rhobite 04:20, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
  2. ObsidianOrder 06:40, 3 May 2005 (UTC) complicity is just harder to understand since "complicity theory" is not a common phrase
Since WP policy is that articles' titles should be simply stated how about 9/11 domestic complicity? zen master T 18:16, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

9/11 domestic complicity theory

  1. "conspiracy theory" is a POV loaded term and its use should be deprecated on an encyclopedia. "complicity" more accurately summarizes this article. zen master T 08:14, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  2. Kevin Baastalk: new 08:16, 2005 May 2 (UTC) - accomplice: one who intentionally and voluntarily participates with another in a crime by encouraging or assisting in the commission of the crime or by failing to prevent it though under a duty to do so.' (source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law); complicity: Involvement as an accomplice in a questionable act or a crime.
    Compare with conspiracy: An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act. there is no agreement; no coordination between the two parties; they did not work together - therefore it is not a theory of conpsiracy.
    As someone once said "Wikipedia should call a spade a spade."
  3. This would be my second choice -- worse than "9/11 domestic complicity theories" but better than anything using "conspiracy". JamesMLane 20:30, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

9/11 domestic complicity theories

  1. This should be the title, preferring "complicity" as more neutral wording and "theories" because there are a variety of theories that should not be lumped together. Everyking 17:44, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  2. This title is broader than one using "conspiracy" because all conspiracies involved complicity but not all complicity is part of a conspiracy, so with the broader title the article could accommodate all theories. I prefer the plural to account for variations among different theories. JamesMLane 20:28, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  3. Kevin Baastalk: new 23:37, 2005 May 2 (UTC) Either one of these two is fine. Since singular/plural is the only difference, which is not likely to be contentious, I believe that a vote one of these should be considered a vote for the other, as well, with a preference for plural/singular.
  4. ObsidianOrder 22:55, 3 May 2005 (UTC) I suppose this is also ok.
  5. zen master T 23:02, 3 May 2005 (UTC) The title doesn't need "theories" at the end but anything that improves upon (by removing) the combined phrase "conspiracy theory" should be supported.
  6. FT2 15:49, May 4, 2005 (UTC) same reasons as given above and elsewhere. (also the word "theories" captures the sense of it enough that "complicity conspiracy" would be mostly redundant IMO)
  7. BrandonYusufToropov 20:51, 4 May 2005 (UTC) "conspiracy theory" is hopelessly POV, this is best alternative I see here, but anything that gets rid of "conspiracy theory" would be worth looking at

Note

Hey folks, this discussion has moved! Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory--Cberlet 23:39, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Discussion is all over the place apparently. zen master T 23:02, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Apparently editors go ahead and change the title without reference to those discussions and votes, which do not support this change. Why call a vote if you're going to ignore the outcome, or not even wait for he voting to be completed? -Willmcw 03:09, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
I didn't change the title most recently though I do support the new title. The edit I made was to the article content itself to reflect the new title. zen master T 04:53, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  • It seems evident to me that the objection being raised to "conspiracy theory" is that "everyone knows that conspiracy theories are bogus", and that by titling the subject of this article as a "conspiracy theory" one presents a judgment as to the validity of the claims made by those advocating the theory. "Complicity theory" avoids this unfortunate connotative meaning of the term "conspiracy theory". I am not particularily sympathetic to this argument, but I think it might be a reasonable compromise to make since "complicity" does not inaccurately describe the level of involvement alleged. (This is not a vote; just a comment.) Kelly Martin 16:49, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • (Copied from Talk:AIDS conspiracy theories) The term "conspiracy theory" is used as a description and isn't only a perjorative term, though it is also that. A conspiracy theory explains a set of circumstances with reference to a secret plot by powerful conspirators. One of the distinguishing features of a conspiracy theory is that it tends not to be falsifiable in the minds of believers. In other words, if the claim is made that 4,000 Israelis were warned not to go to work in the WTC on 9/11, and it's later established that only 10 Israelis were, in fact, ever employed there, the conspiracy theory evolves to include the claim that the Mossad and USG conspired to alter the records, and that the names of 3,990 Israeli employees have now disappeared. That is, the conspiracy theory represents a closed system, not amenable to the standard rules of evidence (similar to psychoanalysis, for example). This evolutionary growth in the face of evidence disproving the theory is one of the things that distinguishes a conspiracy theory from a matter of simple controversy that surrounds the subject. A controversy or unresolved issue is simply a matter of a debate about the facts, but a conspiracy theory is ideology. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:55, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • If anyone can show me where in the article an "agreement" between the U.S. and the hijackers is made, I will understand how "conspiracy" is more precise. If noone can, there will be only two conclusions I could draw: those who voted for "conspiracy" in the title are either a)illiterate, or b)knowingly pushing an inaccurate title. Kevin Baastalk: new 19:11, 2005 May 2 (UTC)

Larger Question of Titles & Conspiracy/Complicity

For months now there has been a series of discussions on how to title pages that may or may not involve Conspiracy/Complicity. A tiny handful of people have resisted attempts to find a compromise, and have unilaterally renamed pages and started title discussions on different pages. I do not think this is either useful of appropriate. The major discussion was at: this page.

Concerning 9/11, there needs to be pages on conspiracy theories that cover claims of conspiracies; and there needs to be pages on continuing controversies and unresolved questions; and there needs to be a page on early misinformation and rumors. Here is my suggestion. The first two pages would be linked to the main 9/11 table of contents:

This is a workable compromise plan for these pages, but there are several other pages involved. This is a complicated process being suggested. Here are some of the pages that would need to be edited with material moved around or at least relinked:

Instead of running around Wiki chasing a tiny handful of editors who do not want to use the term conspiracy in titles, I think it would be useful to set up a broader discussion of these larger issues on a specific page, invite broader Wiki community input, hammer out a compromise, and then get to the really important task of cleaning up this set of pages which are a mess in general.--Cberlet 19:02, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Would it be accurate to characterize your above edit as extreme POV against my position? Either there is a problem with "conspiracy theory" or there isn't, no need to grossly mischaracterize my position. The consensus suggested titles are improving so that is evidence there is/was a problem. Also note the problem I see is with "conspiracy theory" together, either word by itself is ok. zen master T 19:08, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
No, I would characterise your position as inflexible, and unwilling to engage in a constructive collective editing process. When it is clear that you have a minority position on one page, you unilaterally make edits and page name changes, jump to another page and start a new discussion, and then pretend that there is nothing wrong with that.--Cberlet 19:21, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
That is all entirely your errant perception I can assure you. Does wikipedia work towards a true consensus or is it merely a popularity contest? zen master T 19:28, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Cberlet, there is nothing wrong with having multiple simultaneous discussions on different pages. everyone does it all the time. this wiki would make slow progress if each person only worked on one page at a time. However, if you look at people contributions list, you'll see that that's not the case: they "jump" from one page to the next quite frequently.
regarding constructive: zen is discussing this a lot, and making a lot of good points, which are simply being evaded - not addressed - by people with different opinions. those people that are evading are thereby being destructive, not Zen. Kevin Baastalk: new 19:29, 2005 May 2 (UTC)
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)

Vandalism, Process, & POV

Note to BrandonYusufToropov. Wiki style policy is that the title of the page appear close to the top of the lead in bold type. There is a discussion as to changing the name of this page on another page: Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory. By violating Wiki style, and refusing to wait to work through a solution on the other page, you are essentially a vandal pushing a POV.--Cberlet 13:50, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Let me get this straight -- every article has to start with a bold-type restatement of the article title? Are you sure? It's a serious question, I'd never heard that before. BrandonYusufToropov 13:54, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

That's an interesting characterization Cberlet. No. Kevin Baastalk: new 22:46, 2005 May 5 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory vote

Please consider voting at:

Wikipedia:Conspiracy_theory

to rename articles that use the pejorative term "Conspiracy theory" to denigrate the content of the article.

Do the titles of WP articles generally pass partisan judgment on the subject under discussion? Should they? BrandonYusufToropov 02:21, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Titles of WP articles generally reflect what the articles are about. If the article chiefly deals with conspiracy theories then it is logical to include that term in the title. "Conspiracy theory" is neither perjorative nor denigrating if applied to actual conspiracy theories. -Willmcw 02:42, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
And how, praytell does the affect of the word on the human mind magically change in these certain instances and not others? Kevin Baastalk: new 03:39, 2005 May 6 (UTC)
Can you explain what word and what effect you are referring to? "Conspiracy" is a well understood word that means people acting in concert, generally secretively. "Theory" is perhaps less well-understood, but it is used in dozens of article titles, and is generally acknowledged to mean an explanation of events or phenomenons. What's the problem? -Willmcw 05:56, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
It is you who are refering, and from what i gather, you were refering to the phrase. I quote: ""Conspiracy theory" is neither perjorative nor denigrating if applied to actual conspiracy theories." Kevin Baastalk: new 00:38, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

Page move

Kevin, please don't make any more page moves without a clear consensus. As I read the vote above, there are about equal numbers or, if anything, more wanting the word conspiracy in the title than not. It would be a better idea to wait until the main vote and discussion at Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory is over. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:57, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Just to repeat what I wrote on your talk page, Kevin, I can see no consensus on this page to move it and therefore what you're doing is tantamount to page-move vandalism. I haven't been involved in editing these pages, and so I don't know the full background, but it seems that a number of editors have been moving several of these pages back and forth recently to the great frustration of other editors on the page. As a result, Cberlet started a discussion and vote at Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory to resolve the issue, and yet here you are moving again before that vote is over. If you continue to move this or related pages before the voting is finished, I will protect the pages from further editing, but I hope that won't be necessary. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:08, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
Talk:9/11_domestic_conspiracy_theory#Title_vote_.28various_options.29 is a simple majority. And it is the main vote as concerns this page. The page cberlet created is not effective policy, and even if it were, would not supercede resolutions on specific pages. The main vote as concerns this article is on this page. The vote has been dormant for some time. A move from majority support to minority support is controversial, at best, and it is for this reason that i take issue with your move from complicity to conspiracy. Kevin Baastalk: new 01:23, 2005 May 7 (UTC)
No, the voting is still ongoing. And I don't see a clear majority, much less a consensus, for changing the article's original title. -Willmcw 06:16, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Excuse me. Was that page about this article specifically?
  • I quote you directly: "The issue may not lend itself to having a general policy, and should probably be decided on a case-by-case basis."
  • Do you see anything else happening here than what you advocated? What does that vote have to do with anything?
  • You know, I am astonished by the amount of time that is being consumed by objections like yours. Aren't we here to write an encyclopedia, rather than talk about an encyclopedia? Why in the world are you spending so much time talking? Could you focus your efforts on the article, please? BrandonYusufToropov 13:09, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
The vote is here, on this page. Talk:9/11 domestic complicity theories#Conspiracy theory vote. -Willmcw 14:43, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
Well I stand corrected. Looks like we have another person who wants to call an apple an orange. (a theory of complicity a theory of conspiracy) Let's be glad this isn't a legal filing, or some other medium in which techinical accuracy is imperative. Kevin Baastalk: new 06:43, 2005 May 7 (UTC)
"Consensus" for these kinds of things is usually somewhere over 75%; this move is nowhere near that. Jayjg (talk) 05:07, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Did you also toss off a memo to the College of Cardinals re: your personal opinion of how papal selection votes are "usually" conducted? Cite specific WP rules, please. BrandonYusufToropov 14:22, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Rough consensus is the usual standard for moving pages. Please see WP:RM. Rhobite 22:23, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
There's no need to respond to editors who comments consist mostly of personal attacks; I certainly don't intend to. Jayjg (talk) 14:44, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
I'll assume you don't talk to yourself, then, because that was an unsubstantiated accusation and as such a violation of the Wikipedia:Civility policy, and an attack on someone's character i.e. a personal attack. Kevin Baastalk: new 19:35, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

Could we please refrain from moving the page until we reach some sort of consensus. The vote on this talk page is a mess, with people voting for multiple choices. Also, the vote on Wikipedia talk:Conspiracy theory strongly supports using the term "conspiracy theory". At the very least, don't move to titles like 9/11 "domestic complicity" theory which nobody has voted for (notice the quotation marks). Carbonite | Talk 15:06, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../9/2F/1/Talk%7E9_11_domestic_complicity_conspiracy_theories_Archive_1_3575.html"