Misplaced Pages

Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Talk:9 Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 06:00, 27 November 2006 editTwlighter (talk | contribs)1,785 editsm moved Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories to Talk:9/11 conspiracy hoaxes: See talk page.← Previous edit Revision as of 08:58, 27 November 2006 edit undoMONGO (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers76,644 edits Vote on name change as proposed by 24.35.85.32: changeNext edit →
Line 33: Line 33:
**Oh come on. Proof has never been an issue with this article. Why start now? --] 05:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC) **Oh come on. Proof has never been an issue with this article. Why start now? --] 05:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Agree''' per Seabhcan. Change it. (yes, this is a direct copy) ] 05:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC) *'''Agree''' per Seabhcan. Change it. (yes, this is a direct copy) ] 05:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Change''' to ] change article to comply with the facts...all the CT "hypothesises" and "theories" are hoaxes.--] 08:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:58, 27 November 2006

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 9/11 conspiracy theories article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42

Template:Todo priority

Good articles9/11 conspiracy theories was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (No date specified. To provide a date use: {{FailedGA|insert date in any format here}}). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.
9/11 conspiracy theories received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion on 11 August 2006. The result of the discussion was Speedily kept (nomination withdrawn).

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4 /Archive 5 /Archive 6 /Archive 7 /Archive 8 /Archive 9 /Archive 10 /Archive 11 /Archive 12


All the Conspiracies

Hey, i stumbled across this thing and i have no idea what it is. How bizarre? Anybody know what this is? http://www.alltheconspiracies.org --Need2feed 03:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is the same link you just added to half a dozen other pages, that I am going to go and remove. Please do not do that again. Tom Harrison 03:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

A bit POV, eh?

Hi. I noticed that this article seems to be basically "Present the conspiracy theory, then debunk it." It's an implicit assumption from the start that these theories are false. It's like changing the article to "9/11 conspiracy hoaxes" -- it's definitely POV. This is not to say that the entire article should SUPPORT these theories, and obviously some of them are trash, but for the most part it's unduly and prejudicially negative. 24.35.85.32

Let's vote! I agree. 9/11 conspiracy hoaxes--Cberlet 01:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Vote on name change as proposed by 24.35.85.32

New name: 9/11 conspiracy hoaxes

This 'vote' is clear WP:POINT and WP:POV pushing and will not foster a productive atmosphere. It equivalent to proposing moving George W. Bush to Village idiot. It may be correct, but it would offend. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 03:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
You want to change George Bush into a Village idiot. I agree. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 03:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
No, I want you to change it. I'll vote for it if you propose it. Knock yourself out. That american expression might be contrued as violent. As my wife would say: Fill your boots. --Tbeatty 03:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree - Interesting that after so much frantic branding and labelling with "conspiracy theories" and "conspiracy theorists" on here at every moment, a new direction must now be taken. Why? Probably because the term is no longer such a bad deal aferall, as the public awakens to the lies they have been told. Instead of it helping to distance the public from the cover-up, the public is seeing through the smokescreen and embracing the CTs. Thus, time to come up with something new to muddy the waters. You have no proof of "hoaxes," so those accepting this "title" obviously don't care one way or the other about the validity of the content of the page, only about discrediting those they disagree with. bov 04:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree per Seabhcan. Change it. (yes, this is a direct copy) Brimba 05:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Change to 9/11 conspiracy hoaxes change article to comply with the facts...all the CT "hypothesises" and "theories" are hoaxes.--MONGO 08:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Categories: