Fwd: Wikipedia does hit piece on 9/11 Truth

--- In v911t@yahoogroups.com, "Alfons" <alfons@...> wrote:

I just posted these comments on the discussion page at this wikipedia
page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories

You just have to be kidding me with this page. This is one giant straw man argument; you put words into the mouths of the 9/11 Truth Community, with statements like the following:
You say, "conspiracy theorists assume that the 9/11 attacks achieved more-or-less exactly their intended result."
How do you know how many assume, and to what extent?
You seem to be doing an interview, but the persons you are interviewing do not talk, you talk for them, and no rebuttal from the 9/11 Truth People is being allowed.
The conspiracy is not theoretical, it is a fact, and it could be proven beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law. Yet you assume that is a just a theory. It is not theory, and the people of the 9/11 Truth Community are not conspiracy theorist. You claim over and over again that it is just theory, and by theory you mean some sort of wild guess, more or less an unfounded belief, rather than ideas based on facts.
You say, "a 9/11 conspiracy theory generally refers to a belief in a broad conspiracy" Now where and how did you get this? Did you do a poll?
This is clearly an attack on the 9/11 Truth Community. To show that you are neutral, you need to remove terms like belief, and theorist, as well as broad generalizations about what the 9/11 Truth Community is saying. An Opinion Editorial is not encyclopedic. It appears to me that you are agents of the conspirators, accessories after the fact, aiding and abetting the criminals, with a propaganda hit piece, and yellow journalism. Treason!
Can I make a page called, "9/11 Goverment Loyalist Theories" ?
Alfons http://www.v911t.org/
Yes, you may make such a page, and it will be subject to the same scrutiny and review as any other article on WP. If you notice a deficiency with this article, you are free to address the problem yourself. You seem to have access to a computer; use it to familiarize yourself with WP policy and improve the article accordingly. You might first want to review WP:NPA, as insults do nothing to enhance the article, nor your credibility. dr.ef.tymac 16:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Alfons Responds: WP policy is clearly indicated on your 9/11 conspiracy theories page. If you give me the same latitude as that seen in on your 9/11 conspiracy theories page, then I am in, I will not make the "9/11 Government Loyalist Theories" unless I can straw man them, and use broad generalizations to characterize them as the whackos that they are. If you get my drift here I want editorial control in my editorial rebuttal to your 9/11 conspiracy theories page which is clearly an Editorial. Alfons v911t
Alfons, respectfully, I think you are missing a crucial point. "Editorializing" of any form is not acceptable, regardless of what "side" you happen to be on. This discussion page is not a forum for advancing particular viewpoints, and if you were to create such an article, it would probably be summarily deleted. If you really want to help out, start by dropping the name-calling, then start with some basics: (see e.g., Wp:not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox, Wikipedia:Your first article if you haven't already read these). dr.ef.tymac 17:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Alfons Responds: If "Editorializing" of any form is not acceptable, then you need to take this page down, 9/11_conspiracy_theories, or revise it to a great extent. The page is clearly slanted, makes unsubstantiated claims that can only be based upon opinion. It appears that you have arbitrarily decided that the "official story" is correct, and all others are wrong, that is your opinion, and the page in question is your editorial. I am on the side of the Truth, what side are you on? Alfons v911t
Please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion or Wikipedia:Help_desk if you have concerns regarding removal or revision of an article. Those links, as well as the others given to you, provide a lot of useful information. As for your other comments, if you truly believe what you are saying, then it follows that not everything is as simple as it may appear on the surface. You might do well to remember that, before making casual accusations about what "other people" may think. That's all I have to say, regards. dr.ef.tymac 19:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)