Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:58, 25 January 2007

This Template

While I appreciate that people want to create things on here, there is no reason to create multiple 9/11 CT templates on single pages, especially when each one has different information. It is confusing and misrepresentative. I urge you to either delete the old 9/11 CT template, or consider merging this one into that one and work on that one. We should not have 2 and certainly not 2 which both claim to be a way to navigate the info but with different links to the same apparent info. Again, I'm not trying to be rude, I just feel strongly that we don't need more than one template. bov 21:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

What would be logical here is to state explicitly the other templates you are referencing. Without that a discussion is hard. I will refer you to the logic that was used when this template was created here. Fiddle Faddle 21:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The templates serve two purposes. I personally like them both. It is not confusing at all and multiple templates are used in lots of articles. --Tbeatty 22:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

If they are not useful, people will choose not to use them. I think they are useful for navigating through related pages. Readers may not be sure exactly what they want, and this presents them with some related pages to consider. It also saves us from trying to keep in sync the 'See also' sections of related pages. Tom Harrison 22:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'll add a few more of my own templates that say what I want them to say to some other pages too. I didn't realize it was so easy to do on here. Thanks. bov 07:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be reading into this template something which is simply not present. It is NPOV, makes no comment, and is designed and intended simply as a navigation aid at the foot of relevant articles. It is an aid, no more and no less, to people who wish to navigate easily between articles. It is not designed to compete with any other template, nor to take the place of any other template. So far, apart from this one, there is no template which is suitable for all articles. Template:911tm, for example, is solely to do with the Truth Movement. Where an article is not a part of that movement then that template cannot be deployed, but this one is wholly appropriate, precisely because its intent is to gather all articles together.

It is by no means completely loaded with all relevant articles yet. How can it be? It is a work in progress, as is Misplaced Pages. Instead of spending your time removing it, why not take a different view and work to enhance or complete it? Fiddle Faddle 07:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Popular Culture

The (currently sole) article in the popular culture segment links to a mainstream TV series that takes on issues and tends to lampoon them. The show demonstrates that 9/11 CTs are in the popular culture. That it takes a view on them does not make it irrelevant here. The template is designed and intended to navigate to all articles under the umbrella without expressing any comment upon them.

If the CT is valid then it will prevail. If invalid then it will not. Robust theories withstand lampooning by TV shows. Fiddle Faddle 22:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• So do completely absurd ones, like the controlled demolition theory, Elvis being abducted by aliens, or the various Kennedy conspiracy theories. Lampooning is not an indicator of anything other than existence, espoecially it is not an indicator that the theories are in any way credible. Guy (Help!) 10:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with you completely :) Most, if not all, of the various theories and hypotheses are the products of minds who will not accept the simple answer, even when it stands up and bites them in the backside. Fiddle Faddle 11:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a proposal to change the title of this template

I am not yet sure what that proposal is, but I have asked the main objector to come here and discuss it. When we have a consensus we will know what to do. Fiddle Faddle 22:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I have asked many times that the main objector, Bov, comes here and builds a consensus. This is evident from his talk page. Instead he has devoted time to removal of the template, and, earlier today I was forced to put a vandalism warning in his talk page for his edit to the template that surgically removed two characters.

I believe most strongly that a consensus is the only route forward, and I reiterate the invitation to Bov to come forward and build one here. Fiddle Faddle 11:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

My apologies to everyone for all that rant. Could we please stop using this template until it's expanded or renamed? If you would prefer to use it as it is, then it should be named by its topic. Lovelight 22:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It is named by its topic. Tom Harrison 22:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I've examined all this a bit more; judging by the looks of it, this template is some sort of evil twin of the existing truth movement temp? I've noticed by your recent edit that you consider it to be conspiracy theory, but we need to discuss such terminology. One way or another we are discussing it everywhere. Alternative hypothesis, alternative theories … are all valid substitutes. I'm certain that we are all well aware of the etiquettes and this particular hypothesis doesn’t deserve such label (neither do fellow editors, prominent members, supporters…) Let me share another perspective, we can all easily agree that no one offered alternative explanation of the WTC 7 collapse. If we would pursue this down the road and with building 7 on the horizon, we would conclude that this is actually only plausible theory about collapse… Since there is nothing to confront it, it cannot be called conspiracy. So, quite seriously, I honestly think that this is excellent template for this particular (unquestionably significant) topic. If we were to rename it properly and stick it on main article it would be sight to behold, as it would certainly offer some, well needed balance (NPOV) there. Lovelight 00:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

summary

1. I'd really like reasonable explanation why would only plausible theory about collapse of WTC 7 be called conspiracy. On what basis? Reflecting what? Our personal opinions? Where is the kontrapunkte?

2. Why is this template in use if it's not finished? Wouldn’t you agree that its current form makes him nothing else but misnamed mirror image of existing template?

3. Anyone can easily anticipate inclusively exclusive difficulties in future expansion (I'm anticipating this because of the comments)…

& Why is the proposal to name the (useful) template by its (only) subject such outrageous notion?

1. Even if it were the only plausible theory for the collapse of WTC 7, it still involves a conspiracy. Hence it's a conspiracy theory.

   Response: I fail to see the logic? Please elaborate. Lovelight 23:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

2. {{911tm}} (misnamed, in my opinion) is also up for deletion, but this template sits unobtrusively at the end as if it were a collection of "See Also" links. {{911tm}} takes up unreal estate (screen space) which could probably better be used for article text.

   Response: We obviously have deeply polarized opinions, and I'm afraid we will have to seek some middle ground. Lovelight 23:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

3. Most problems involving future expansion could be resolved by "hiding" the relevant lines that one wouldn't want expanded. I see no other problems other than vandalism (removing relevant listings, and inserting irrelevant ones) by User:Bov and attempted repurposing by User:Bov, Nuclear, and yourself. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

   Response: Most problems with expansion cannot be solved, for example if scholars turn to death ray, it will exclude the others and vice versa and it can only lead to disputes, hide and seek and other heavy intercourses. Not sure if we really wont that? & I'm not sure why you had to call names? Lovelight 23:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

4. The individuals and groups propose other conspiracy theories — Controlled demolition is merely the only one with an article. In fact, Scholars for 9/11 Truth is apparently coming down in favor of death rays. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

   Response: As stated, there is no need for this if it is not expanded, why is there such urge to stick it? Lovelight 23:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It appears I misunderstood you. Nuclear, gave a plausible explanation that you wanted to create a 9/11 controlled demolition template. That may be a worthy cause, but hijacking a perfectly respectable conspiracy theory template for that purpose is questionable. As for specifics (not referring to existing numbers, because you're giving the same reply in more than one number) The only theory with a Misplaced Pages article is the controlled demolition theory. However, the individuals and groups named in the template may propose different theories. If you don't remove those individuals, groups, and media which support other theories than controlled demolition within the next 12 hours, I'll restore the conspiracy theory template in its original form. The template is perfectly fine in the conspiracy theory form, or as reduced by removing other entries in the controlled demolition form. Alternatively, the real conspiracy theory template might include the controlled demolition template. There is no need for expansion, unless other articles are proposed. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

If this page was perfectly reasonable, it would not be up for deletion with half the people thinking its not perfectly reasonable. While those other individuals may propose other theories, they are not all on Misplaced Pages for their theories, to claim the theory has weight and is notable because the person is, would mean you should write an article on it and defend that article right? I guess you could easily remove people who do not fall in line with controlled demolition, however you run the risk of removing people who may have their own theory, but also support controlled demolition, so please be careful when doing so. For instance a source stating they do not believe it would be a good way to remove the basic people. --NuclearZer0 23:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Design considerations

While awaiting the proposal, here are the design considerations. These will assist when reaching a consensus on the wording within the template:

1. Be a simple, foot of the page, navigational template
2. Be inclusive. Allow all articles which are conspiracy theories and hypotheses to be linked
3. Be suitable for inclusion on any article about a proponent of, or a supporter of one or any of the conspiracy theories, whatever their other interests or reputations
4. Be NPOV in deployment. It is recognised that a template itself can imbue POV to an article.
5. Not be mutually exclusive with other templates
6. Neither validate nor invalidate the conspiracy theories
7. Include popular culture insofar as it acknowledges the theories, whether in favour or against.

I may have been the main creator of this template, but I am not emotionally committed to anything except improving it, both in content and in deployment. I simply created it, opened it for comment, accepted those comments and then deployed it. Fiddle Faddle 23:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Be suitable for inclusion on any article about a proponent of, or a supporter of one or any of the conspiracy theories, whatever their other interests or reputations

Isn't it interesting how a CT nav template must include ALL ideas and proponents no matter what relevance or background or even absurdity, while non-CT templates would have criteria for inclusion? This is called discrediting by association and functions to mix nonsense - space weapons, nukes, holograms, UFOs - with the real work - scientific experiments of the evidence - to dilute the real work and discredit it. Not too difficult to understand, is it? 152.131.10.133 22:41, 17 January 2007 o(UTC)

What would be more constructive is to make a positive and helpful suggestion. A template that connects the full portfolio ranging frm lamebrains to intelligentsia, from ludicrous concepts to potentially justifiable research is perfectly valid Fiddle Faddle 23:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the solution, but it is worth recognizing that frequently the distinction is blurred, in both directions, to distort issues of credibility. I would suggest that conspiracy theory requires some element of unfounded speculation and would exclude the (few) cases of questions genuinely unanswered. Peter Grey 00:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the heading lines could solve that. Some judicious rewording there should please the majority of proponents and opponents of "non mainstream arguments". After all, nothing is set in stone. Fiddle Faddle 00:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

As for helpful suggestions, don't include the hoaxes and the trashing of the questions, as you do now. Meyssan and the Pentagon missile are old news and no longer promoted. The Urinal episode is derogatory towards those questioning the truth, however much you may consider it necessary to have a "pop culture" area to wedge it in there. Does the September 11th navigation box include a pop culture interpretation of its theories, or pop culture trashings of the viewpoints of the government? Nope. Why? Because promoting cartoons that trash the content (or are considered debatable on the issue of whether they support or trash) isn't supportive of the content. Just because 9/11 truth is mentioned someplace, doesn't make that source a relevant "source", it makes it so that more people can see how another corporate media venue trashes those who question. If people disagree on it, it shouldn't be on there. This is what Tom Harrison has learned on here, that he can insert anything that trashes the 9/11 truth movement as long as it says the words "conspiracy theory" in it. This is how the trashing is already done on here all over the place, so why perpetuate it? Remove the old hoaxes and the mainstream trashings. Step one. bov 01:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but you don't get to choose a "favorable" rendition of the "Truth Movement". It is what it is, since it is a loosely defined conglomeration of persons and groups. It includes all takers, everything from your favored theory to the ones you dismiss. You don't get to determine what is relevant or irrelevant. If a source describes a person or a theory as part of the movement, then it's in. Further, if we remove all of the hoaxes as you request, there wouldn't be a single mention of the movement or theories anywhere in Misplaced Pages. Morton Devonshire 01:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

This isn't 911tm ... --NuclearZer0 23:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see any difference between an old hoax and a new one - both are paranoia-driven fantasy, and both have been refuted. On the other hand, a South Park parody of conspiracy theories is, obviously, not itself a promotion of conspiracy theory. Peter Grey 01:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The connection between conspiracy theory and popular culture is important. It is one of the main areas of academic research, as in Mark Fenster's work. Conspiracy theories are of interest as sociological phenomena. They are things people believe, and that is/should be how we write about them. The section on popular culture should be expanded, if not in the template then in the relevent articles.

Certainly Meyssan's work and the influence it has had are important and need to be presented.

Tom Harrison 03:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

South Park

Until someone starts adding aouth park episodes to the Holocaust article I will remove the south part episode from this one. This is a template not for anything that has ever contained a joke, bit, comment, or article regarding 9/11 conspiracies. It is to guide readers toward connecting articles of relevance, since South Park hitler episodes do not appear on the Holocaust article, I am sure the point is understood. --NuclearZer0 14:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it woudl be preferred that you build a consensus for that action. The logic you use is interesting, but I do not see the comparison. The South Park article is an example of how the conspiracy stuff has entered the public consciousness, and thus is valid. I oppose your action. Fiddle Faddle 14:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Your opposition is noted, however since you have not refuted my statement, that is also noted. --NuclearZer0 14:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't really see a statement to refute except with a general opposition. I'm glad you are seeking to build a consensus for your intended action. Fiddle Faddle 14:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

More consensus-building here. Tom Harrison 14:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I see the anon, Bov and myself opposing what you Tom and Morton favor. I do not see concensus for its addition. --NuclearZer0 14:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Nuclear, there is no place on the template for the pop culture ref. and it is inconsistent with other templates on wikipedia. There was a call for building consensus, but now that there is some, it is ignored. Who'd have guessed? bov 19:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see consensus for its removal, either. As bov opposes the existence of this template, I don't see his opinions as necessarily having the weight required to indicate that there isn't consensus for its addition. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

As you argued fo ronthe September 11th page, concensus to add, not remove. --NuclearZer0 23:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It's an example of how it has entered the popular consciousness. It is not, however, an individually significant case of it; it's just Yet Another Thing Vaguely Related. Adding it to the template, with its own header and so on, just makes it look disproportionately important and suggests there is some deep hidden significance to the target article that simply isn't there. Shimgray | talk | 18:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not its own header, or at least it's not meant to be; it's the header for Popular culture. It's an important part of conspiracy theory and a subject of academic study. It should stay, and be expanded. Tom Harrison 20:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Shimgray, since there are no other pop culture references in the article it looks as though it has a larger then needed importance and should be removed until such a section can be fully fleshed out. --NuclearZer0 11:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

the expansion

I just want to express thanks to NuclearZero (sp?) for the major expansion. Looking good. Fiddle Faddle 16:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I've just finished adding the template to the extra articles that NuclearZero added. Fiddle Faddle 18:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Capitalisation

It's a nice template, but What's With All The Caps? --Guinnog 16:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Details! Feel free to "Wikify" Fiddle Faddle 17:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

This template is currently nominated for deletion

Please see Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Template:911ct here for the moved deletion discussion and make whatever comments you wish Fiddle Faddle 23:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy vs. Alternative

The template is named 911ct (for conspiracy theory). If someone wants to create a 911at (alternative theory) template, I have little objection. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I see no difficulty with that at all. I foresee the same issues that we have here, but with different players, however. We do not need at present to relabel the template (the {{911ct}} name, I mean. We can simply run with the different name within the template. Fiddle Faddle 07:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree I dont see the problem with having it say "alternate theory", there are things like article renames and redirects here on Misplaced Pages that you may want to read up on Arthur Rubin, it doesnt cause mass confusion or trouble, especially since the template is inserted into articles, people will not even see the name. If you need more information on page redirects or renames, please let me know. --NuclearZer0 11:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Changing it from "conspiracy theory" to "alternative theory" changes the entire meaning of the template. (I feel "alternative" is incorrect, but that's another matter.) I consider it effectively vandalism of the articles the template is included in, whether or not that was the intent. Perhaps the templates should be deleted if we can't reach agreement as to what should be the subject of the template. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Far better to reach agreement. Fiddle Faddle 15:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice. So would peace in the Middle East. I'm not sure which is more probable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I suppose suggestng that the middle east problems be deleted after a debate is out of the question? But, rather more seriously, reaching a consensus requires that people are willing to reach one, or at least to open negotiations. I am losing count of the number of times I have invited the prime reverter of the deployment of this template to the table to reach a consensus and the invitation has been ignored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timtrent (talk • contribs) 15:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I think if Arthur Rubin is gonig to refuse to discuss at all a middle ground, then it should be noted his objections and refusals, and the discussion should proceed. I am not sure how alternate theories can be "wrong" when they are not the accepted version, they are clearly an alternate being offered. --NuclearZer0 20:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The name of the top-level page is 9/11 conspiracy theories. Renaming that has been discussed at length. Tom Harrison 21:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes lucky we always have the option to rediscuss. Care to add your comments to the current discussion?--NuclearZer0 21:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

When has anyone proposed a middle ground?

They are all conspiracy theories, in fact, as they all require government and/or mainstream news media conspiracies in order to "suppress" the "facts". — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

They are alternate theories, hence why they are alternate to the main. Sorry but since you refuse to budge I will note that fact and your refusal to even look at a middle ground and move on to discussing it with others. --NuclearZer0 11:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit wars

There are no arguments presented here that it should be "Alternative Theories". I'm not going to consider it such, but an uninvolved admin might consider those changes vandalism unless discussed. bov and NuclearZer0 seem to be well aware of this page, and should present any arguments they may have to support "alternative theories" on this talk page. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that I oppose the parody site being there, also, but as any change at this point (other than the addition of a completely unrelated article) would be a reversion, I cannot make the change myself. If one of the enemies of conspiracy would remove that section alone, it would be appreciated. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

"Enemies of conspiracy" who is this? Anyway I am sorry you see enforcing a concensus to be vandalism and have announced that you will violate Wiki policy by discussing things with your fellow editors. --NuclearZer0 11:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I should have said enemies of (the word) "conspiracy". There is clearly no concensus for "alternative" at this time, as you and bov are the only editors who have expressed approval in these talk pages. There has also been no "middle ground" proposed. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is the purpose of this template? If it is to serve any, then it should be placed on main 911 article, and/or main 911 article should be placed on this template, right? You've probably noticed that I'm a bit reluctant to get into fiery discussion about terminology, since "official account" of events is called conspiracy by so many. Well, after given it some thought, I'd go for alternative (for it gives us valid base to add main article to this template). However, there is also room for middle ground here, as well as somewhat different direction; if we would refer to these "alternative theories" as to "independent investigations" (there is actually WWW consensus on this) we would come much closer to NPOV terminology. I'm pointing this out because the template is obviously focused on controlled demolition hypotheses (I've quick scanned the article and find no reference to any form of conspiracy there). Anyway, try to take a look at the template and see it as: Independent investigations, hypotheses, proponents & supporters, and popular culture… If you would kindly share your thoughts. Lovelight 15:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You asked about the purpose. That is set out in part in Template_talk:911ct#Design_considerations above. The overall purpose is to be wholly inclusive. I see your point that the sole theory/hypothesis included so far is the CDH, but that is a thing that time can cure with ease. You could, if you choose, cure that yourself. Death rays and other amusing oddities are perfectly includable. They just have not been so far. Fiddle Faddle 18:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope, it should be clear by now that I don't appreciate mixture of "nonsense" and science. If you would implement death rays in same template in which is this particular hypothesis I'd have to fight that vigorously. Lovelight 18:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Some of us think that the controlled demolition theory is disproved by the observations, so that it is as credible as "death rays". (Or at least terawatt IR lasers — also disproved by the observations, but just as scientific.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what to say, perhaps some of you should go back to classroom?;P Lovelight 19:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

A Lexis-Nexis search of news articles finds 202 results for "9/11" + "alternative theories"; searching "9/11" + "conspiracy theories" yields 5,167 results. "Conspiracy theory" is by far the most common term used to describe these theories. We are required to use the most common term. --Aude (talk) 16:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Aude, good to see you again, as noted above, this template is based on hypothesis, not conspiracies. Lovelight 16:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

PS. As a matter of fact, it appears to be very precise, very singular topic/template. Lovelight 16:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

"Alternative hypothesis" is not used by the news media. Only found one instance of its use- in a quote by Steven E. Jones. We must use the most common term -- "9/11 conspiracy theories". --Aude (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, we are not talking about "Alternative hypothesis", nor "Conspiracy theories", we are talking about "Controlled demolition hypothesis" (very precise, singular, not plural). Lovelight 16:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we are talking about 9/11 conspiracy theories. There are theories involving controlled demolition; theories involving Jews; and others involving space-based energy weapons, lizard men from another dimension, and holographic planes. They have a page: 9/11 conspiracy theories. They have a number of sub-pages (all of which now have 'nofollow' in the links, praise Jimbo). Misplaced Pages includes such an extensive body of material on these conspiracy theories that the average reader would find this navigation template helpful. Tom Harrison 17:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

No, as it stands now this is singular issue, you may even call it a flaw in the template… if you won't to name it as "conspiracy template", it needs to be expanded. As it is, the only proper title would be: "Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center". As for nephites, lizards, snakes, and death rays from other dimension, you're really pushing it of the topic Tom;). It is something I'd sooner expect from Devonshire lineage… Lovelight 17:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you underestimate, or at least understate, the popularity of David Icke. Most of 9/11 conspiracy theory is right in line with the rest of western conspiracy theory, going back to the 1820s at least. Until a few years ago, most conspiracy theories had been coming from the right; now the left is joining in, as with the New antisemitism. Now that I think of it, that might be another page to include in the template. I don't know what Morton's lineage has to do with anything. I hope you don't subscribe to that 'Illumniati bloodlines' nonsense. Tom Harrison 17:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your thoughts, but all that has nothing to do with freefall, and domino effects and PNAC (which is, as you are well aware of, fascism by the very definition of it) "freedom agenda" and so on... Those who orchestrated event of this magnitude should have been aware of Butterfly Effect and I'm not about to guess where will we end up from initial condition. Judging by the unfolding history it will simply blowback - as it always does. Well, let us leave quantum mechanics, metaphysics and bloodlines (simply had to poke you with that one;) for some other time. It's more of a topic we could enjoy while drinking fine vino in front of the fireplace. Now, about the template, this singular issue could easily be most important of them all, and there might be some fortuna in all this, since the hypothesis doesn’t (emphasis added) belong to the realm of conspiracy. Perhaps we should seek a consensus and implement it for what it is? I certainly hope that you are not one of those who is eating pancakes and defying gravity? Lovelight 18:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how you could seriously argue that 'controlled demolition' is not part of the larger pantheon of 9/11 conspiracy theories. If it has developed an elevated status, it certainly hasn't in the reputable press, where it is indeed lumped-in with David Icke's people, and that's our measuring stick. Oh, and to speak my name as if it were a 'swear word'; I am shocked! Morton Devonshire 02:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hola Morton, remember how u used to greet the visitors on your talk page? Guess you learned some decency since our last encounter… About your point, I'm sorry, but while I find your contribution to Wiki rather amusing, such nonchalant approach does discredit your work and it's hard for me to take you seriously. Your arguments and reflections about such important issues as this one are nothing but derogatory and/or libelous, which is needless to say such POV that would (under normal conditions and in normal work environment) force you to exclude yourself from most of discussions. As for this (repeating) insertions of David Icke (who is btw somewhat marginal, although dramatis persona here in Europa, since his lectures are basically gatherings of fascist, and that is more than reason enough to simply avoid any deeper study of his work, well, at least from my perspective…) if you would kindly cut the crap? That is, are we talking about template which deals with inconsistencies of 911 events, or are we talking about general conspiracy template for every single nonsense that floats out there? As stated before, and as it stands now this is singular topic template, I'd use it as such along with already established name (apparently some sort of consensus was already reached, since article acknowledges hypothesis, not a conspiracy), imo it would improve our encyclopedia. However, I'm not about to fight this, nor I care deeply about this particular draft since "agenda" behind it does seem a bit fuzzy. One thing is certain though, if you are about to mix science with fiction, we'll cross our (s)words. Shalom! Lovelight 16:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Aleichem shalom, my friend Che. But you misunderstand me -- the fact that anybody on Misplaced Pages makes distinctions between 'nonsense conspiracy theories' and 'established conspiracy theories' is of no import. Reputable sources make no such distinction, and since we are bound not by what we decide here but by what they say there, we are not permitted to make those distinctions -- to do otherwise would be to engage in synthesis/original research. Morton Devonshire 02:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

More humor? Some sort of labeling? None of these researchers deserve to hear that word from you. I've told you once how I find it all very amusing. Let me explain, apparently, you are viciously insulting a vast amount of people the very moment you strike the keyboard and type conspiracy. I wasn’t kidding before, do you honestly think that you can contribute to this discussion when your user page is pure pattern of very reason we are having this dispute? You my friend are redefining the very meaning of the term POV, leading it where no POV has been before. Lovelight 02:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You're still not addressing the point. Morton Devonshire 15:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

There's a follow up↑. Lovelight 15:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It's merely advocacy for your position that one set of theories is more 'reasonable' than another set -- if you want to advocate, do it off-Wiki. There's no place for original research here on the Wiki -- our rules don't permit that. Morton Devonshire 17:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Glass houses and all. Have you seen your own userpage? --NuclearZer0 18:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOR applies to articles. Get over 'it', whatever 'it' is, please. Morton Devonshire 19:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You mean templates because this isnt an article, still dont get why you are arguing NOR. You made a statement that "Reputable sources make no such distinction," when addressing the difference in conspiracy theories is quite the case of NOR, care to cite your source where they do not? I am anxious to see it. I hope you are not running around making statements then asking others not to violate NOR when they say you are wrong. --NuclearZer0 23:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

As I said, your bias prevents you to judge this properly, if you could, then you wouldn’t portray my arguments as advocacy, while thinking about my proposal as some form of conspiracy. I'm not trying to bite or anything, I've told you that I find all that amusing, however, your position is self declared. I've made more than one point in effort to illustrate why this template's current caption is flawed. One could argue that part of it is based on such (hopefully unnecessary WP's as WP Ethics) but there are also some purely logical, technical flaws. Lovelight 18:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

My personal feelings don't impact our rules at WP:RS & WP:NOR, which you still have to follow, and you still don't understand that they apply to your attempted distinction between 9/11 conspiracy theories. Morton Devonshire 19:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Just check the design notes, every single one is violated. As it is, this template refers to only one event (it's not inclusive), and one single article. Article which is correctly named, did those researches called their own thesis conspiracies? They haven't, so what kind of authority we have here? What gives us right to label them with such label? To who are you referring while seeking reputable sources? Give me just one sample of good reputable source (except this hypothesis) which will explain descend of WTC 7. One. If you would like to associate template with conspiracy theories you'll need to expand it by your own design lines. Until then, there is no reason for its distribution. You cannot go around with such draft. Lovelight 19:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

If this were the 'controlled demolition' template you might have a point. Tom Harrison 20:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Templates can be renamed, if the template is found to be covering only one topic it could easily be renamed to match that. I am sure you already know about page renames however. --NuclearZer0 21:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)