Template talk:911ct

This template does not require a rating on Wik.ipedia.Pro's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States This template is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wik.ipedia.Pro. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWik.ipedia.Pro:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles

This template was considered for deletion on 2007 January 20. The result of the discussion was "to keep".

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Maybe these people actively promote conspiracy theories, but their articles don't provide any indication that that's the case, and the template needs to rely on those article for verification.Prezbo (talk) 00:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wik.ipedia.Pro'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 Wik.ipedia.Pro 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I think that we should add Charlie Sheen to the template. He has publicly supported 9/11 cts on multiple occasions, and clearly wanted to associate himself with the theories.  Cs32en Talk to me  03:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose so. I think he falls more into generic conspiracy theorists, rather than 911ct, but it seems appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rosie O'Donnell should be added for the same reasons as Charlie Sheen. Although Sheen was more active in making his views known, O'Donnell also made her views public on occasions in which she was in the spotlight of public attention.  Cs32en Talk to me  03:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is unused, so I nominated it for deletion. Bulwersator (talk) 05:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC) And[reply]

Template:911ct/Supporters/Politicians and Officials (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:911ct/Supporters/Political activists (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Bulwersator (talk) 05:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking the editor who moved the template to come here and justify the move, one for which no consensus was formed. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 02:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. "911ct" is cryptic. A Porsche car? Something to do with Connecticut, maybe? The model number for a piece of (electrical) equipment? And so on. Even in the context of 9/11, ask folks on the street what "ct" might mean and I wonder if many would guess "conspiracy theory" – unless they already happened to be in that conversation. (But that'd be an assumption.) CsDix (talk) 02:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your move without first building consensus and your rationale. The template name was brief, intended for easy addition to articles. You have produced a long winded name. The usage of the template was obvious. It was present and contained all the information needed. I oppose your move. With templates, especially those in use on a significant number of pages it is customary to build consensus prior to making bold moves. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 02:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, given the further observations I included here, it's not that long-winded a name – but it is surely a cryptic one, no? (When I first saw its name, I had to follow the link in order to get some idea of what it was about.) Is making something clearer / less ambiguous / less cryptic a bold move? Anyhow, by all means have it moved back if you wish. CsDix (talk) 02:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about you undo all the work you performed? Moves of this nature without consensus are not useful. It now requires administrative intervention, so please either do this if you are an admin yourself or request it of you are not. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 03:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I've put in the request. Template names should be concise. Your quest for clarity is laudable. My view is that this was a move too far. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 03:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the need to rename the template again – especially to something more cryptic – so I'd let it be. I don't imagine there'll be a glut of new articles demanding more than the occasional entry or paste of "September 11 conspiracy theories". After all, the main 9/11 template is {{September 11 attacks}}, not {{911 attacks}} or {{911a}}. CsDix (talk) 03:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that conciseness is desirable, but not to the extent that ambiguity and then the cryptic result. CsDix (talk) 03:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no ambiguity. The template is a long standing template and you moved it without consensus. Your 'not seeing the need to move it again' is capable of being interpreted as a manner of seeking to impose your will rather than achieving consensus. If you believe that the template is badly named, seek a consensus for your actions. The consensus that obtained already over the entire period of its deployment until your move has been that the template's name is not in question. Discussions have happened about its content, even about its objectivity.

I accept that you (and others) have the right to propose a change. I accept that consensus may be built for a change. When and if such consensus happens I will be content to be bound by it. But, unless and until that happens, bold moving of a template in significant use, whether you change all the templates that hitherto used the old name or not, is not an appropriate action. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, though potentially helpful in future – beyond another five years – I guess I don't see it as being that significant a move. I don't agree, though, that the name isn't ambiguous. (Actually, as above, I'm suggesting it's more than ambiguous: it's cryptic.) Please be reassured, though, that my not seeing the need to move it again isn't because I'm wishing to impose my will and/or "POV"; again, as above, feel free to have it moved back. For the sake of consistency, how about moving Template:September 11 attacks to Template:911a (and similarly for other 9/11-related templates)..? CsDix (talk) 12:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having just spent a really tedious time reverting every last goshdarned change you made to the template in every article it is transcluded in, and having become closer and closer to suggesting that this was vandalism but restraining myself, I think we can safely assume that I am uninterested in your thoughts. Next time you think about moving a template in widespread use, build consensus for the move first. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"I think we can safely assume that I am uninterested in your thoughts."

Thanks, nonetheless, for yours. CsDix (talk) 12:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, there has only been one person objecting to this move. Personally, I support the move – for exactly the reason explained by CsDix. "911ct" is very cryptic, and "September 11 conspiracy theories" is not exceptionally lengthy or complicated. Having said that, it probably would have been a good idea for the issue to have been discussed before the move occurred. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My objection has been to the draconian change, followed by changes to every single article deploying the template. This was a change that required and requires consensus. Build consensus to change the name and change the name you shall. I will object to the proposal, others will support it, others will object. That is the way of Wik.ipedia.Pro. With templates deployed on many pages the reaching of a consensus is more than a good idea. It is vital.

With regard to the name, how cryptic are all the deletion templates? This is the same type of nomenclature. Templates are templates. A good template needs to be easy to add to an article. 5 characters are easy to add. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There should be consensus before the name is changed. I will probably not support such a change. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]