Template talk:911ct
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This template was considered for deletion on 2007 January 20. The result of the discussion was to keep. |
 Archives |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|||
| Threads older than 90 days are archived by MiszaBot II. |
Contents |
[edit] type=BLP
What is it supposed to do, and what does it have to do with BLP? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- This parameter is for adjustments that are necessary or appropriate for article on persons, i.e. BLP articles. The changes are concerning the format (the default for type=BIO is "collapsed") and the presentation. With "type=BIO", the template says "Articles on", instead of "Part of a series", because the latter can be misunderstood as meaning that the complete biography of the persons somehow is a part of a series and would have been compiled for that reason. Cs32en 02:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm no template master, but I don't see that behavior, either the collapse or title change. Tom Harrison Talk 17:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- If you insert {{911ct}} in an article, it just works the same as before, i.e. it is in state "autocollapse" and it collapses only on pages with multiple navboxes, and then only if it is not the first navbox. For the BLP articles, you insert {{911ct|type=BLP}}, and then it is collapsed by default, except if you would write {{911ct|type=BLP|state=uncollapsed}}, in which case it would be uncollapsed. Cs32en 20:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I see it now thanks - it was a javascript thing. Tom Harrison Talk 22:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- If you insert {{911ct}} in an article, it just works the same as before, i.e. it is in state "autocollapse" and it collapses only on pages with multiple navboxes, and then only if it is not the first navbox. For the BLP articles, you insert {{911ct|type=BLP}}, and then it is collapsed by default, except if you would write {{911ct|type=BLP|state=uncollapsed}}, in which case it would be uncollapsed. Cs32en 20:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm no template master, but I don't see that behavior, either the collapse or title change. Tom Harrison Talk 17:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Category: Proponents of 9/11 conspiracy theories
I've created Category: Proponents of 9/11 conspiracy theories. There are now more than 50 supporters listed in the template, this is unhelpful for the average reader. As the complete list is now available on the category page, I'll shorten the list in the template. This list includes 24 persons who are either
- Current or former heads of state
- Current or former members of government
- Politicians who support (or have supported) 9/11 conspiracy theories while in office
- Notable activists of the 9/11 Truth movement
- Well known artists or scholars
and 2 persons that have
- Wikipedia articles that receive more than 30.000 clicks per month (David Icke, Gore Vidal).
(The article Lyndon LaRouche needs a 911ct template with type=BLP, but is locked at the moment.) Cs32en 03:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Richard Williamson (bishop)
- Doesn't a bishop qualify as a politician? Richard Williamson was certainly acting as a politician in his statements, rather than as a bishop.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- That is, even if those criteria were accepted. I see nothing here except your proposal. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
-
- A politician is someone who holds a political office, such as a member of parliament. Other people who engage in political debates are rather being called political activists. Richard Williamson is suspended from the office of bishop, so notability cannot derive from any status within the Catholic Church either. The sources that User:Tom harrison has included in Richard Williamson (bishop) do not seem to support Tom's wording, i.e. that Williamson promoted such theories, rather than expressed belief in such theories, either. Having a separate section for these remarks made by Williamson is somewhat exagerrated as well. Cs32en 19:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- I think "promoted" rather than "expressed belief" is generally what can be sourced for almost all of them. As for his "former" bishop status, it appears he promoted it while he was an (active; that is, not suspended or excommunicated) bishop. It may be he's not noted for being a 911 conspiratist, but he was a noted person and a 911 conspiratist. This criteria does not exclude him. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- A politician is someone who holds a political office, such as a member of parliament. Other people who engage in political debates are rather being called political activists. Richard Williamson is suspended from the office of bishop, so notability cannot derive from any status within the Catholic Church either. The sources that User:Tom harrison has included in Richard Williamson (bishop) do not seem to support Tom's wording, i.e. that Williamson promoted such theories, rather than expressed belief in such theories, either. Having a separate section for these remarks made by Williamson is somewhat exagerrated as well. Cs32en 19:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
- One source says "The Society's support for Williamson - who also believes that the Americans planned 9/11 - is likely to end any chance of full reconciliation between the SSPX and Rome," the other says "Williamson also believes that on 9/11 the two towers weren’t destroyed by terrorist suicide bombers but rather “they were professionally demolished by a series of demolition charges from the top to bottom of the towers.” The bishop believes that the US planned the attacks for their own means and that “without 9/11, it would have been impossible to attack in Afghanistan or Iraq… And now the same forces want to do the same thing to Iran. . . They may well be plotting another 9/11." The sources don't even say that he has expressed these beliefs publicly, although we can infer that from the quotation marks. Williamson has been excommunicated before 2001, and his right to execise the office of a bishop of the Catholic Church has not been restored or granted after the excommunication has been lifted. Williamson does not represent any larger section of society (nor has he been elected by any larger group of people), as politicians (especially elected politicians) do. (Williamson is listed in Category:Proponents of 9/11 conspiracy theories.) Cs32en 20:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- I see your point. It's not established that he's promoting 911 conspiracy theories; however, if (our sources aren't clear) he stated his belives while speaking as a bishop, it would be difficult to say that he wasn't attempting to associate the Church with the theories. We cannot make that conclusion ourselves, because of WP:SYNTH, but it would then be obvious that what he was doing was promoting the theories, even if he didn't say he was. Still, our sources aren't clear. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- One source says "The Society's support for Williamson - who also believes that the Americans planned 9/11 - is likely to end any chance of full reconciliation between the SSPX and Rome," the other says "Williamson also believes that on 9/11 the two towers weren’t destroyed by terrorist suicide bombers but rather “they were professionally demolished by a series of demolition charges from the top to bottom of the towers.” The bishop believes that the US planned the attacks for their own means and that “without 9/11, it would have been impossible to attack in Afghanistan or Iraq… And now the same forces want to do the same thing to Iran. . . They may well be plotting another 9/11." The sources don't even say that he has expressed these beliefs publicly, although we can infer that from the quotation marks. Williamson has been excommunicated before 2001, and his right to execise the office of a bishop of the Catholic Church has not been restored or granted after the excommunication has been lifted. Williamson does not represent any larger section of society (nor has he been elected by any larger group of people), as politicians (especially elected politicians) do. (Williamson is listed in Category:Proponents of 9/11 conspiracy theories.) Cs32en 20:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- As he has been excommunicated ipso facto with his consecration in 1988, he hasn't ever been a bishop in the sense that would imply notability. He apparently wrote about his views on the September 11 attacks in a letter to supporters. I don't know what he was trying to do, but as he was not a Catholic bishop when he wrote the letter, he wouldn't have been able to associate the Catholic Church with the theories. Cs32en 21:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Why does he have to be a Roman Catholic to be notable? Tom Harrison Talk 22:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- If we say that the notability of bishops is equivalent to the notability, say, of members of Congress, then this would apply only to bishops of the main Christian churches. There are, of course, other sources of notability, but the issue of whether he is a Catholic bishop or not is related to this potential source. Cs32en 22:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- It seems like these standards are being made up as we go. But if that's the standard, it seems he is after all a Roman Catholic bishop. - Profile: Bishop Richard Williamson. Tom Harrison Talk 22:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Why does he have to be a Roman Catholic to be notable? Tom Harrison Talk 22:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- As he has been excommunicated ipso facto with his consecration in 1988, he hasn't ever been a bishop in the sense that would imply notability. He apparently wrote about his views on the September 11 attacks in a letter to supporters. I don't know what he was trying to do, but as he was not a Catholic bishop when he wrote the letter, he wouldn't have been able to associate the Catholic Church with the theories. Cs32en 21:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Well, maybe by the journalistic standards of major news outlets. According to Pope Benedictus XVI, referring to earlier decisions of the Catholic Church, "the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty [i.e. the excommunication] – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church". [1] And the BBC does not say that Williamson is a Catholic Bishop. I assume that the Roman Catholic Church does not have copyright on the term. Cs32en 22:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I don't see how he isn't a notable supporter. Tom Harrison Talk 21:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] BLP issues
About all people categorized as "9/11 conspiracy theorists" reject that description. So if there are BLP concerns with the term, either all those people must be taken off the category, or the category's name must be changed. However, the name of the category has been regarded as a neutral description. We cannot say that the description "conspiracy theorist" is fine for some people (who we may not like or may not consider important), and at the same time insist that it is a BLP violation for others. Cs32en 01:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
[edit] BLP is serious, and policy
WP:BLP seems to be ignored here as if it did not exist. This template blithely libels many prominent people, and is plastered over many articles. Ambiguous and disputable statements from various sources are being reported as undisputed truth. This concerns living people, about which wikipedia has very stringent rules for sourcing. For any purpose, we are only allowed to report as fact, unattributed, in wikipedia's voice, statements about which there is no serious dispute. Something in a template should be still more solidly sourced, and above all, to repeat, about living people, be ironclad.
A person's statement that they are not a conspiracy theorist is to be taken seriously. In Gore Vidal's case, he states that the Bushites were simply too incompetent to undertake a successful conspiracy. To my mind that is in fact the most decisive argument against 9/11 conspiracies. Doing nothing is not a conspiracy. Saying that Bush did nothing could mean that he simply sat and read a book about a pet goat at an inappropriate time, which is not something in dispute. McKinney's statement cited on her talk page casts doubt on the reference used, and using it there, or to keep things out of the article is in now way OR. OR always has to do with what is in the article, not what is not in it.
The proper place to have arguments is on each person's page and talk page. Once there is a BLP compliant consensus there, based on strong, well-understood, unambiguous, undisputed, reliable sources a person could be put here, not the other way around. As the template and categories show up in the article, the sources must be in the article, not somewhere in the labyrinth of wikipedia.John Z (talk) 01:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Doing nothing on purpose - "going out to lunch", as Gore Vidal says - is "Let it happen on purpose" conspiracy theory. See the article 9/11 conspiracy theories. The sources on which the list is based are all reliable sources, per Wikipedia policy. Cynthia McKinney is a member of "Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth" (http://pl911truth.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47&Itemid=53), so we have every reason to believe she said what was being reported, and there are not reliable sources reporting that she didn't say it. Most of the people in the list have stated that they are not conspiracy theorists. I have not chosen that name for the category, and I have already brought up the BLP concerns associated with that term myself. But if there is consensus that the name is appropriate and not libelous, then it should be appropriate for everyone, as an objective description, and independent of the person's own view about this. Must we remove Steven E. Jones, because he also reject being called a conspiracy theorist, or is his opinion or his personal reputation less important than, for example, Gore Vidals? And of course, articles can be misleading or wrong by omitting information, whether as a result of original research, personal preferences, or other reasons. Cs32en 01:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- (ec)This is the second time in four years at wikipedia that I have re-reverted something. A local consensus to use low standards of evidence does not override global rules. Please read WP:BLP. Again, concerning Vidal, the grossly insufficient quote is clearly being misread. He says "I believe about them" that they (Bush etc) "could" (probably morally could) do that (knowingly let it happen) - not that they in fact did let it happen. I came here after seeing a category deletion/ name change deletion review debate. Deletionists and inclusionists there, usually at loggerheads agree that Category:9/11 conspiracy theorists is overpopulated with marginal figures, especially since it has been renamed to say something stronger about its members. John Z (talk) 02:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for removing the list. People may say that they are not conspiracy theorists. That should be taken seriously. But if they are called "conspiracy theorists" by RS's and unambiguously promulgate what all RS's label a "conspiracy theory", it is OK to include them. But especially if they deny the label, and the evidence is ambiguous, they must be removed.John Z (talk) 02:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Very few are actually called "conspiracy theorists" verbatim by a majority of reliable sources. The sources say they promote, defend, advocate etc. conspiracy theories. Until a few day ago, the category was called "Proponents of 9/11 conspiracy theories", not "9/11 conspiracy theorists". With the name "conspiracy theorists", the category (again) risks being used as a trashcan for Holocaust deniers etc., i.e. people who nobody defends against BLP violations, basically. In part, this is a result of an ill-conceived choice for the name of the category or list, in part, it may be a deliberate strategy of some people. Cs32en 02:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- I haven't been watching this lately, but they (and some others, previously removed various reasons which make no sense) clearly are "proponents of 9/11 conspiracy theories", but it may be correct to call them "9/11 conspiracy theorists". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe everyone clearly is a conspiracy theorist, I never followed this much. But the evidence needs to be in the article, according to accepted standards, not here. The difference between Jones and Vidal is that Vidal's article has nothing in it which shows that he definitely believes in a "Doing nothing on purpose" conspiracy, while according to his article, Jones belongs to various organizations, asserted it was "an inside job", etc. The difference is glaring; a much, much lower standard of evidence is being applied in Vidal's case. Of course RS's saying someone promotes, defends, advocates etc. (what is generally regarded as) conspiracy theories is good (but not always definitive) evidence for a "conspiracy theorist" categorization.John Z (talk) 07:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- This is only a BLP issue if there aren't RS. Here, there are RS. I agree with AR. Verbal chat 07:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Then put the RS's in the articles. It is a BLP issue until solid, unambiguous, essentially unanimous RS's are there. That's the job of people who believe someone should be in the template. The RS's have to be essentially unanimous just to attain normal standards, let alone BLP ones.John Z (talk) 07:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Typo in my comment above ... "it may not be correct to call them conspiracy theorists." Regardless, they are clearly proponents or possibly false-light distributors of 9/11 conspiracy theories. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- I should add that the category rename makes the (new) category violate WP:BLP, and hence should be revoked. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Then put the RS's in the articles. It is a BLP issue until solid, unambiguous, essentially unanimous RS's are there. That's the job of people who believe someone should be in the template. The RS's have to be essentially unanimous just to attain normal standards, let alone BLP ones.John Z (talk) 07:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- I haven't been watching this lately, but they (and some others, previously removed various reasons which make no sense) clearly are "proponents of 9/11 conspiracy theories", but it may be correct to call them "9/11 conspiracy theorists". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Very few are actually called "conspiracy theorists" verbatim by a majority of reliable sources. The sources say they promote, defend, advocate etc. conspiracy theories. Until a few day ago, the category was called "Proponents of 9/11 conspiracy theories", not "9/11 conspiracy theorists". With the name "conspiracy theorists", the category (again) risks being used as a trashcan for Holocaust deniers etc., i.e. people who nobody defends against BLP violations, basically. In part, this is a result of an ill-conceived choice for the name of the category or list, in part, it may be a deliberate strategy of some people. Cs32en 02:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for removing the list. People may say that they are not conspiracy theorists. That should be taken seriously. But if they are called "conspiracy theorists" by RS's and unambiguously promulgate what all RS's label a "conspiracy theory", it is OK to include them. But especially if they deny the label, and the evidence is ambiguous, they must be removed.John Z (talk) 02:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- (ec)This is the second time in four years at wikipedia that I have re-reverted something. A local consensus to use low standards of evidence does not override global rules. Please read WP:BLP. Again, concerning Vidal, the grossly insufficient quote is clearly being misread. He says "I believe about them" that they (Bush etc) "could" (probably morally could) do that (knowingly let it happen) - not that they in fact did let it happen. I came here after seeing a category deletion/ name change deletion review debate. Deletionists and inclusionists there, usually at loggerheads agree that Category:9/11 conspiracy theorists is overpopulated with marginal figures, especially since it has been renamed to say something stronger about its members. John Z (talk) 02:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- User Cs32en wrote: "Cynthia McKinney is a member of "Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth" [...] so we have every reason to believe she said what was being reported"
-
-
-
- Please recall our previous discussion on this issue. Reading the original transcript it became clear that McKinney's remarks were bent out of shape. Her article still has serious issues which remain to be fixed. Dynablaster (talk) 11:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
-
[edit] Jersey Girls, Family Steering Committee, 9/11: Press for Truth
The articles about these things really don't explain why they're in this template. Seems like a serious BLP/NPOV problem.Prezbo (talk) 19:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- The article are about people who actively and publicly support statements that are being described as 9/11 conspiracy theories. For this reasons, the links to the articles are included in the template. As long as the term "9/11 conspiracy theories" is being regarded as a neutral, objective description of these hypotheses, there is no BLP-sensitive issue here. Cs32en Talk to me 22:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
-
-
- Ahem. The groups promote the theory that the 9/11 Commission was a conspiracy not to investigate the acts correctly. That qualifies as a conspiracy theory in my book, even if not specifically named in the 911ct article. The film seems less clear from the present article, but it still promotes the theory that Commission was prevented from following some investigations, which may also qualify as a conspiracy.
- I'm restoring the links. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- The 9/11 Family Steering Committee article says that they were critical of the 9/11 Commission's scope, financial resources, conflicts of interest allegedly held by its participants, etc. These are totally normal criticisms to make of a government body and don't make you a conspiracy theorist. The idea that a government commission would slant its results in order to exonerate the people who set it up isn't a conspiracy theory except in the most legalistic sense, and it doesn't meet Wikipedia's definition of "9/11 conspiracy theories" as theories that "allege that the September 11 attacks in 2001 were either intentionally allowed to happen or were a false flag operation orchestrated by an organization with elements inside the United States government." The Jersey Girls article basically just has a quote saying that they thought the commission's result was inadequate, so the inclusion of that article is even less justified. Again I'm just talking about what's in these articles, maybe they've said much crazier things that Wikipedia has failed to record, but as long as the articles don't indicate that they are conspiracists they shouldn't be in this template.Prezbo (talk) 17:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- I don't agree that their theories are not 9/11 conspiracy theories, but the we need to reach consensus at that article, first, so I won't reinsert. However, those theories are considered "9/11 conspiracy theories" in the real world, so that they should be there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- The 9/11 Family Steering Committee article says that they were critical of the 9/11 Commission's scope, financial resources, conflicts of interest allegedly held by its participants, etc. These are totally normal criticisms to make of a government body and don't make you a conspiracy theorist. The idea that a government commission would slant its results in order to exonerate the people who set it up isn't a conspiracy theory except in the most legalistic sense, and it doesn't meet Wikipedia's definition of "9/11 conspiracy theories" as theories that "allege that the September 11 attacks in 2001 were either intentionally allowed to happen or were a false flag operation orchestrated by an organization with elements inside the United States government." The Jersey Girls article basically just has a quote saying that they thought the commission's result was inadequate, so the inclusion of that article is even less justified. Again I'm just talking about what's in these articles, maybe they've said much crazier things that Wikipedia has failed to record, but as long as the articles don't indicate that they are conspiracists they shouldn't be in this template.Prezbo (talk) 17:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
-
- So you're saying that you want to discuss this at the Jersey Girls talk page instead? That's fine, create a new section there if you want to do that.Prezbo (talk) 17:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- No, I want to discuss it at Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories, as, at least "Press for Truth", makes the claim that the 9/11 Commission was prevented from studying some aspects, and that the assertions of bias and "conflict of interest" about the Commission are 9/11 conspiracy theories, and should be noted in that article, and hence the template is applicable to those who make that assertion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
