Talk:Rumors about the September 11, 2001 attacks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Misinformation and rumors

This page is created in the interest of having a record of the rumors and misinformation that can arise in the face of tragedy. It is not intended to be disrespectful of those who, perhaps innocently, might relay such information believing it to be true.

Contents

[edit] Let's move on

It is quite clear at this point that zen master is not interested in seeking any type of compromise or constructive solution. The same demands posted over and over are not a collective editing process. I suggest that those of us who were involved in the plan for attempting to rearrange the conspiracy claim pages simply move ahead.--Cberlet 12:06, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You refuse to debate or work towards consensus. "conspiracy theory" and "misinformation and rumor" are provably too POV for use in a title. If someone wrote either of those phrases inside an article there'd be all sorts of controversy and editing to clean up such usage. zen master T 17:30, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Maybe. This article is a mess, and I agree with you insofar that it's absurd to make wikipedia deny that conspiracy theories exist. Incidentally, Zen might be interested to know that Heaven's Gate (cult) is not at Heaven's Gate (religious movement).
At some point—when agreement is nearly universal—it no longer makes sense to say only that "some claim object fall downwards" or that "most find insufficient evidence to suggest 4000 Jews didn't go to the WTC on 9/11." We should call these things what they are. Cool Hand Luke 21:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Technically Heaven's Gate (cult) could be a misuse of language in a title but much less egregious than "conspiracy theory" and "misinformation and rumor" because arguably the members of the "religious movement" would be ok with having been labeled as a cult. "cult" still tells the reader to take the subject of the article seriously and was likely only created to disambig from separate usages of "Heaven's Gate". Someone can not make a statement in an article on wikipedia that 4,000 Jews didn't show up for work at the WTC on 9/11 without citations. Let's state facts as facts directly, for rough example: "The allegation that 4,000 Jews did not show up for work on 9/11 is impossible because far fewer Jews worked in the affected buildings and there is no evidence of a warning". Any such allegation should additionally be caveated with the number of Jews that were actually killed in the 9/11 attacks. zen master T 21:23, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Just as Heaven's Gate needs to be distinguished, so do these theories. The refuted claims are different from other theories in that it is as demonstrably conspiracy theories as they are false—more so, in fact ("conspiracy theory" allows for the possibility that it is true). One can theorize about Jewish culture, Isreal, and 9/11, for example, but conspiracy theories are what these articles fall under. These are not theories about how 9/11 affected Jewish/Israeli relations, and I think it's clear that such material would not belong in the same article as conspiracy theories. Incidentally, as a member of an ocassionally labelled cult, I've never met anyone in my life who would accept that label. I have, however, met self-described conspiracy theorists. Cool Hand Luke 23:30, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The problem is that "conspiracy theory" connotes that the article itself is unworthy of being taken seriously, which is the anti-thesis of an encylopedia. It would be like having an encylopedia article on apples vs organes and using a title "oranges better than apples". An encylopedia shouuld not have articles on "conspiracy theories" without taking seriously the subject and allegations, which will allow the readers to decide for themselves that the allegations are without merit. Like "conspiracy theory", "cult" is a judgement call but its problematic usage is lessened by it being inside parenthesis. "Cult" in that case only exists to disambig, whereas usage of "conspiracy theory" seems to be pushing a POV for the overall subject, especially considering there are more neutral and separately better sounding titles than "conspiracy theory" or "misinformation and rumor" available. I've been involved with a few controversial articles on wikipedia, in my opinion, the 9/11 controversy articles fall far outside the neutral norm title wise, even for a "controversial" article. zen master T 00:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute tag

Most of your complaints above concerned percieved POV usage of terms and titles in this article. Please explain the inaccuracies you find in this article, Zen-master. Cool Hand Luke 10:53, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

The POV adds up to being factually incorrect (commingling disparate items) and is borderline uncleanupable. Initial errant over estimates for the number of victims killed (and victims by nationality) is hardly "misinformation" or "rumor". "Rumors of passing UFO"? come on. Flight 93 passengers revolting claims also do not belong in this article. We need to separate things which are really being claimed from things which are provably false. Claims "Zacarias Moussaoui" was the 20th hijacker is hardly "misinformation" or "rumor" for opposite reasons. Parrallel War Games is a true fact that happened on 9/11 (having a section titled "claims which turned out to be true" inside an article titled "misinformation and rumor" doesn't make sense). zen master T 19:46, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
So you believe these things are outside of the article's scope and POV? I agree that this is a POV issue, but we should not give the erroneous impression that the article is massively incorrect. See Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute. Perhaps we should just insert a disclaimer stating that rumors can be true. Cool Hand Luke 19:30, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

The errant claims about the number of people killed according to nationality are significant because they're the basis for some conspiracy theories (e.g. that no Israelis were killed because the whole attack was an Israeli plot, etc.) and it's useful to record those claims. This article is far from perfect, I agree. But I don't agree with some of your criticisms.

The Claims Which Turned Out To Be True section is also useful here because these claims might be thought by some people to be false. Similarly, Snopes has articles on true rumors, although it usually concerns itself with debunking false claims. Mr. Billion 20:38, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

The errant initial over estimates themselves are absolutely not misinformation or rumor. Stuff that is "true" does not belong in a misinformation and rumor titled article (even more fundamentally such an article does not belong on wikipedia, all items should be merged elsewhere). zen master T 21:04, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Zen master is now unilaterally renaming pages rather than following through on the discussion on this page. See: this renamed page. This is thoroughly outrageous.--Cberlet 03:41, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Indeed. I've reverted his unilateral actions. Jayjg (talk) 06:54, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
9/11 controvery was the suggestion to be the main article (not my suggestion). So you disagree the new title(s) are better? If so, on what logical basis do you disagree? I didn't rename this misinformation and rumor article because I consider it borderline uncleanupable. zen master T 03:44, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with Iraq sections

Here's one problem: The connection between Saddam and 9/11 is listed both under claims proven to be false and claims that are still unresolved/controversial. We can't have it both ways. Is it still controversial enough to be listed under Unresolved? Or did the 9/11 commission settle it well enough? Even Cheney claimed last October that he had never suggested a connection between Iraq and 9/11 (although the preceding September he "suggested" that Iraq was "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years now, but most especially on 9/11." Seems pretty obvious he's suggesting a connection there.) So is there really a debate over Iraq's involvement any more? Not that I know of. I'm moving the "Unresolved" Iraq section to the section "shown to be false." Post here if you disagree. Mr. Billion 09:21, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

That is correct; it should be under "false." You might add a link to Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda which debunks more specific charges with regard to Iraq and 9/11.--csloat 20:54, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Debate on "Conspiracy Theory" in Wiki page titles

There is a new page, Wikipedia:Conspiracy_theory where there is going to be a larger discussion of the use of the term "Conspiracy Theory" in Wiki titles. It would be ideal if people with a variety of viewpoints joined the discussion on that page, since a number of page titles are likely to be discussed, and name changes debated.--Cberlet 19:47, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] There should not be "false/unresolved/true" sections

This article should be titled "Rumors about the September 11th,2001 attacks." There should not be true/false/unresolved categories, if a claim has been proven false it should be explained in that section. All rumors should have a neutral point of view at all times, and should present both sides of the argument while keeping neutral. Some people have written things like "so-and-so claimed this..on closer inspection it's actually this". Don't do that. Provide evidence for that side's argument, while balancing with the other. Thank you and please work hard at keeping this NPOV. Stancel 21:38, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Justification of inclusion of NESARA section

The editor who removed the NESARA section noted that he thought it was probably "intended as a joke". It was not. I can verify that there are many people who believe this very strongly, as absurd as it may seem. If there are other legitimate reasons for removing this setcion, let's hear them, but based on the comment that it was removed because it was intended as a joke, I have re-included it.

The "NESARA" claim that George Bush is actually a "reptilian humanoid alien" is clearly a crackpot conspiracy theory, and if it has any place in Wikipedia articles about the September 11 hijackings, it would be in 9/11 conspiracy theories. As a rumor, this meme would be unable to survive in groups of people outside of a certain limited and manic frame of mind. I'm moving it to the conspiracy theories page. Mr. Billion 21:03, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Actually, since this article may soon be merged with several others, I'll leave it as it is. Here is the "alien" claim: They further believe that Bush is a reptilian alien and a member of the illuminati. This part is relevant to the conspiracy theory, which is why the whole thing is balderdash. Mr. Billion 21:36, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] VfD results

This article was nominated for deletion. The result was merge to articles relating to 9/11 conspiracy theories. For details, please see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Rumors about the September 11, 2001 attacks. -- BD2412 talk July 8, 2005 18:30 (UTC)

This article is quite different than conspiracy theories about 9/11. these are rumors that nearly everyone can agree are false. Those are conspiracy theories arguing that the US gov or another organization was involved. Bonus Onus 23:41, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm not expressing an opinion one way or another, just reporting the results of the discussion. It will remain up to others to actually carry out the merge as they see fit, so you should address your concerns to those who voted to merge in the vfd. Cheers! -- BD2412 talk 01:00, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Please complete the merger by July 22, as the VfD decision was made almost 3 weeks ago. This article will soon be a re-direct. Jayjg (talk) 16:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)