THC Science

The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss proposed policies and guidelines and changes to existing policies and guidelines.
If you want to propose something new that is not a policy or guideline, use the proposals section.
If you have a question about how to apply an existing policy or guideline, try one of the many Wikipedia:Noticeboards.
This is not the place to resolve disputes over how a policy should be implemented. Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for how to proceed in such cases.

Please see this FAQ page for a list of frequently rejected or ignored proposals.

« Archives, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194

Deprecation of date= in references

I can't find this new policy: See this diff. Checkingfax (talk) 00:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that must be a bug in the bot. month=, day=, and coauthor= are all deprecated, but neither date nor author that i know of. DES ^(talk) 01:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging the bot's operator to here seems to be in order. @Trappist the monk:--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The answer seems to be here. Sam Walton (talk) 19:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link Sam. My ping is now deprecated.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:51, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding lyrics to songpages?

Hello,

Why don't we add lyrics to song pages? It seems like something we could do. Firstly is there any policy preventing this? Considering the amount of sites that do it (genius, azlyrics, metrolyrics...) it could add information users are looking for when they lookup a song. I think lyricwikia has had some success doing this. If there's no policy preventing this, I'd like to discuss adding lyrics to song articles.

Jakesyl (talk) 01:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jakesyl, Unless the song was published prior to 1923, the lyrics are most probably under copyright. We have a policy against posting copyrighted content except in very limited ways. Quoting a few liens to discuss them is proper, quoting the entire lyric usually is not. Many sites violate copyright in such matters. DES ^(talk) 01:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did a little research. It does appear this could be a violation of copyright. Is there any policy on not posting lyrics for public domain songs? Also does any policy prevent editors from linking to these sites? Jakesyl (talk) 01:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ELNEVER might be the answer to your question about links. -- GB fan 01:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, linking to genius.com would be okay because it is fair use for “for purposes of commentary and criticism."? Jakesyl (talk) 20:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JakesylIf the lyrics are truly not copyright, or published under a proper free license, they are welcome at wikisource, which posts such material. Lyrics generally don't belong here, where we instead summarize and comment on them. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC concerning the dispute resolution noticeboard.

See Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard#RfC: Should volunteers moderating a dispute be bound by the instruction to "Comment only on the content not the contributor". AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:33, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page (9/11 conspiracy theories) violates the Wikipedia Five Pillars

TLDR

Massive violation of Wikipedia Five Pillars on this page The second pillar is this:

Second pillar Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view.

We strive for articles that document and explain the major points of view in a balanced and impartial manner. We avoid advocacy and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in other areas we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context, and not presenting any point of view as "the truth" or "the best view".

This article is very biased, false and misleading, in blatant and obvious violation of this second pillar. The article is not the slightest bit impartial and does a very poor job presenting the explosive controlled demolition conspiracy theory. The so called "conspiracy theory" of explosive controlled demolition of the World Trade Center's Twin Towers and Building 7 is very well documented.

This 9/11 conspiracy theories highlights one major weakness of Wikipedia and the Wikipedia philosophy: the assumption that if somebody publishes a statement it must be true. The problem in this article is that critical thinking was not applied to the official conspiracy theory, the one proffered by the government and mass media starting on 9/11 itself, the one that blames 19 Arabs armed with box cutters. There are dozens if not hundreds of flaws in the government's conspiracy theory in virtually every area. Just because NIST has published their own theory of what happened does not mean it is true. What this page ought to contain is a detailed critique of the NIST investigations and report along with a defense of that critique. I am willing and able to provide part of the former: the government's apologists will have to provide the latter.

Another way in which the article is misleading is its treatment of the term or phrase "conspiracy theory". By definition the official story is a conspiracy theory. The proposed FAQ flatly denies this but it is true. The article poisons the waters and effectively prevents a reader new to the subject from objectively reading it and evaluating the explosive controlled demolition theory with an open mind. The use of the term "conspiracy theory" in connection with 9/11, coupled with the false statement that the government's account is somehow now a conspiracy theory, seems intended to prevent Wikipedia readers from actually looking at the evidence objectively and with an open mind. You are doing the work of the government and mass media and it is a total violation of this pillar of Wikipedia. (You meaning those who have written this article and rejected edits to make it more accurate.)

Does an Administrator have anything to add on this? When was the last time an Administrator closely reviewed this article to determine how well it complies with this pillar of Wikipedia? Was that ever done?

Peace Beasley Reece (talk) 18:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Read WP:FRINGE and WP:DUE WEIGHT. Just because a view exists does not make it reliable or notable. The neutral view in this case is that the fringe theories, while existing, are not scientific and not accurate. This is confirmed by a slew of reliable sources. We don't give equal weight to Holocaust deniers, Christ myth theorists, flat Earth theorists or Moon landing hoax proponents, and to do so would be against the due weight policy. The same applies with this page, which certainly promotes a fringe theory. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for conspiracy or fringe theories and to demand equal weight clearly goes against due weight on this issue. Toa Nidhiki05 18:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC) Toa,

Your examples have nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks or specifically the explosive controlled demolition theory. You have made a logical fallacy; grouping all conspiracy theories together as one, as equally valid and supported by science, and dismissed them all. You are either unaware of the substantial scientific evidence that supports the explosive controlled demolition theory and the many fatal flaws in the government's story or you are incapable of looking at the evidence objectively. Or you are just an apologist for the official conspiracy theory and you are using and abusing Wikipedia rules to censor my work. In any case, bad behavior.

Claiming that the U.S. government and mainstream media account of the 9/11 attacks is correct is extremely biased. It is the direct opposite of neutral. Same with claiming that the explosive controlled demolition theory is incorrect. You have no idea what neutrality means, nor did you pay any attention to the second pillar of Wikipedia.

Explosive controlled demolition is not a fringe theory. There is no factual basis for you to say that. It is well documented and supported by science. Due weight requires presenting a subject fairly so that others may evaluate it. Claims by the government should always be treated with suspicion, nowhere more than on this subject. The last thing any thinking person should do is accept the government's claims on matters of war and peace without checking them.

Furthermore you never responded to my claim; that the second pillar of Wikipedia requires this issue be presented accurately and in context. The 9/11 Conspiracy theories page does a very poor job of that. Your denials notwithstanding. By the way you cannot make something so by saying it, even if you say it 100 times. The laws of physics apply every day to every building. The official story requires you (me, everybody) to believe that the laws of physics such as those concerning free fall gravitational acceleration and vectors (direction of motion related to the direction of an applied force) did not apply on 9/11 at the World Trade Center. The official story has been proven false and the explosive controlled demolition theory has been proven true. See for example Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth [1] and Scientists for 9/11 Truth [2]

The fall of WTC 7 was achieved by explosive controlled demolition. These facts are unknown to the vast majority of the U.S. population and the world. Most do not even know that Building 7 existed; let alone that it came down in 7 seconds let alone the specifics of the collapse: sudden, symmetrical, rapid and complete.

Building 7 of the World Trade Center, a 47 story building, contained offices of the CIA, the Secret Service, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) several financial institutions and then-Mayor Giuliani's Office of Emergency Management.

Despite never being hit by an airplane, Building 7 was reduced to a pile of rubble in about 7 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001. After 9/11 this fact has been widely covered up by the U.S. mass media and was even omitted from the 9/11 Commission Report.

NIST, the National Institute for Standards and Technology (a U.S. government agency) was authorized by Congress to determine “why and how WTC 7 collapsed.” NIST produced a preliminary draft of their final report in August, 2008 omitting the fact that Building 7 fell at free fall acceleration for part of its descent. After a physicist challenged NIST on this point the final report, in November 2008 admitted free fall acceleration for 105' or 2.25 seconds.

NIST wrote, “A more detailed analysis of the descent of the north face found . . . (2) a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s . . . .” (Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, NIST NCSTAR 1A, page 48) [3] Beasley Reece(talk) 20:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are operating under a misconception and have misunderstand key wikipedia policy. Our goal is not impartiality. Impartiality is defined as: "an inclination to weigh both views or opinions equally." This is not what we do in wikipedia, instead we use WP:DUE weight. We don't pretend all opinions are equally WP:VALID. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC) To respond to your claims, Beasley Reece, I never dismissed anything. I gave examples of fringe theories that are not covered equally and relevant policies that explain why this is and should be the case for this particular fringe theory. It isn't biased to make a direct claim supported by sources, as the account of the event is. I would suggest you stop making bad faith accusations about me and instead show why the direct policy I showed is not applicable. As for the Truther propaganda you are posting I have neither the time nor will to debate a Truther about why he is wrong and why the fringe science you are supporting is wrong. Everything you are posting is typical Truther stuff that has been debated and disproved numerous times. It is against WP policy to promote Truther ideas as equals with the mainstream, scientifically accepted account, as it would be for any of the examples I listed above. Toa Nidhiki05 20:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC) As no evidence for controlled demolition as ever been reported in any reliable source we don't report on it. This is perfectly in keeping with WP:NPOV. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC) We cannot question the version of events that has been accepted by mainstream academic and news sources, even if they are wrong. Our role is to accurately and fairly reflect what they say. TFD (talk) 14:18, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

This conversation has a few good merits here, so I figured it was worth reviving. I'm not sure if this point got lost in the conversation above, but it seems that it was never addressed. "Claiming that the U.S. government and mainstream media account of the 9/11 attacks is correct is extremely biased. It is the direct opposite of neutral." This is actually a valid point, considering the fact that all of the mainstream academia sources that Wikipedia uses concerning 9/11 upholds the 'official story'. Since all the main academia sources concur on the 'official' explanation, it leaves no room for any other possible determination as to what could have caused the World Trade Centers to collapse that day. That would make this entire page in violation of the Wikipedia Five Pillars, since all the sources pander to the same side, not allowing any other data, or information to be shared on Wikipedia, like it should. Here's an example. In the section of this page concerning the Thermite found in Ground Zero, it says, "The article contained no scientific rebuttal and the editor in chief of the publication subsequently resigned.", links and all. Yet, here is that same exact page, with all of the links to accepted Mainstream Academia sources included ^[1]. Why is it so difficult for Wikipedia to be able to maintain a neutral point of view in articles concerning controversial events? This page does NOT follow any sort of neutrality, as well as the main Wikipedia page for 9/11. Enough said. Not only that, but when I try to revive this archived conversation, a Wikipedia user that sheriffs the page keeps deleting my post, stating it's too long, and too old. I could've sworn that on archived pages, it says "If you want to discuss an archived discussion, revive it to the current talk page", which is what I tried to do. How is it fair that I have a valid point to make, and to hopefully to contribute to Wikipedia to make it more accurate, yet I can't seem to make my voice heard because certain Wikipedia users feel entitled to make certain pages appeal to their opinion, or the opinion of "consensus". That being said, I found this beauty of a line in the above conversation that furthers my point. "We cannot question the version of events that has been accepted by mainstream academic and news sources, even if they are wrong. Our role is to accurately and fairly reflect what they say." That would mean that this page is NOT neutral, and does not support a neutral point of view. This page is very lacking on sources that can contribute a scientific input to the "other side of the coin" as far as 9/11, and conspiracies. Yes, there are a lot of new users, and anonymous IPs that try to add information that has no valid source, and other nonsense. That much for the people who patrol these pages can be applauded. However, whenever a well-meaning Wikipedia user tries to add actual scientific data, the users who patrol these pages automatically reject this information as invalid, because it doesn't agree with the views of those patrolling the page. Such as when I tried to add this link^[2] to the 9/11 conspiracies talk page, and it was subsequently removed without being reviewed. Please do not tell me that I am ranting endlessly because Wikipedia isn't fair, or I don't agree with it. The reason I am taking the time out of my day to write this post is so that we, as Wikipedia users, can figure out to make pages like this follow the law of neutrality. The best example I can give of Wikipedia is would be Sweden claiming it's neutral, yet following, believing, and adopting all the ideals of another country. I know that we all have the brains to be able to work this problem out resolutely. Thanks. New User Person (talk) 22:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In short, this user is arguing that 9/11 conspiracies deserve "equal time". Equal time is not the same as neutral point of view. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I took the time to write out my comments because Wikipedia pretends to be neutral on such controversial matters, yet takes only one side, unfairly. Here's a quote from another Wikipedia user that basically sums it up, "We cannot question the version of events that has been accepted by mainstream academic and news sources, even if they are wrong. Our role is to accurately and fairly reflect what they say.". This is a basic flaw in the so called neutrality of this page, and again the reason I took the time out of my day to share my consensus. I thought that is what Wikipedia was founded on. Consensus. How is 'consensus' the argued point of a few, even if it is in agreement of the mainstream academia sources. You have to remember that the it was a consensus that reached the agreement that the world is flat. How is it right that Wikipedia reflect the views of those, whether they are correct or not? Wikipedia was made for the benefit of all who access it's data, to the best, most accurate knowledge. That doesn't mean regurgitating incorrect information, and rejecting information that dares threaten the current 'consensus'. Just like the 2008 9/11 conspiracy arbitration committee. A committee that was in complete agreement not to change a thing about the Wikipedia page, because they are all in agreement that the information is 'accurate'. New User Person (talk) 23:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To begin with, consensus never argued the world was flat. The Earth has been known to be spherical since ancient times. There are better analogies to make. And to end with, your problem seems to be with the policies themselves and not the application. The neutral point of view requires that we follow what mainstream sources say. The mainstream presents a single, monolithic viewpoint on this subject. The conspiracy theorists are not, and will not, be given an equal voice on that page, or any page, as it should be. You're beating a horse that's been dead for years. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"During the early Middle Ages, virtually all scholars maintained the spherical viewpoint first expressed by the Ancient Greeks. From at least the 14th century, belief in a flat Earth among the educated was almost nonexistent, despite fanciful depictions in art, such as the exterior of Hieronymus Bosch's famous triptych The Garden of Earthly Delights, in which a disc-shaped Earth is shown floating inside a transparent sphere." I'm sorry, you were saying? That is beside the point of the argument. Wikipedia claims to try and be as scientifically accurate and neutral as possible. Yet, the information that is shared on Wikipedia is only dictated by a few? It's a classic paradox. New User Person (talk) 00:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has never claimed the kind of neutrality you are talking about, and never will. Please read WP:FALSEBALANCE. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:07, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Under the policies pages on Wikipedia, here is the description for 'Neutral Point of View', "Everything that our readers can see, including articles, templates, categories and portals, must be written neutrally and without bias". That would, in effect, be the exact opposite of what you just told me. It would also make it the exact opposite of what WP:FALSEBALANCE states. New User Person (talk) 00:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is your misinterpretation of one sentence, a misinterpretation that is counter to WP:FALSEBALANCE as well as WP:WEIGHT. You can argue all you want, but I promise you your views are not supported in Wikipedia policies. I can only suggest more reading and less writing for the time being. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well I don't understand how that is my 'misinterpretation'. It says exactly what it does on the tin. Meaning the sentence only has one clear interpretation. No if, ands, or buts about it. The definition of the word 'neutral' is as follows, "not helping or supporting either side in a conflict, disagreement, etc.; impartial." That means not one side, nor the other. Since all of Wikipedia uses all of the mainstream academia sources that argue the same side on every issue, that would in effect make it biased. Please notice how the word 'bias' is defined as a complete antonym of the word 'neutral'. New User Person (talk) 00:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you, and the misinterpretation is the result of the necessity to use one word to describe a Wikipedia principle. Sometimes the language just doesn't provide a word that's entirely adequate, and we have to choose an ambiguous word and try to clear up the ambiguity in the text of policy. The same problem exists with the word "notability", and to my knowledge we're still trying to find a better word. At Wikipedia, "neutral" means evaluationg the reliable sources neutrally and without bias. An example of Wikipedia bias would be giving more weight to the 9/11 conspiracy theories than is justified by reliable sources. That would be a bias favoring those theories. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The neutral point of view is defined as "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.". (emphasis mine). The lunatic fringe is neither significant nor reliable. If we accepted your interpretation of "neutrality" half of evolution would be about creationism, the article on hydrogen would discuss alleged new energy levels, and Barack Obama would include sections on his being Kenyan, Muslim, and/or an alien lizard. You would like us to accept you interpretation of a brief summary of a policy, and have us ignore the actual policy. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I differ with that approach. It is neither necessary nor useful to make our own subjective judgments about lunatic fringes, we need only to look at what reliable sources think. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was never asked that more weight be given to conspiracies, and the like, than other views. You are right, it would be unfair if too much weight be given to conspiracy theories. It would make Wikipedia bias towards that one side. A It is only asked that they be reviewed as fairly as the mainstream academia sources are. Information about Barack Obama being a possible alien lizard would be a prime example of information that should be weeded out of Wikipedia regardless. It is obvious nonsense, and not every person, or 'conspiracy theorist' if you will, agrees with that view. I certainly don't. It is when information, like the information I tried to add about thermite found at Ground Zero, that is overlooked with the same notion. That it is nonsense. If you were to actually take the time to read the link to the source I provided, then you would see that this source contains links to mainstream accepted academia sources. Like I mentioned earlier, it is impossible to add any type of scientific data to any Wikipedia page, let alone a page such as 9/11 conspiracy theories. That is because any edits to such pages are closely monitored by someone, and if the edit does not agree with the views of the patroller, it is reverted. I was always in the understanding that Wikipedia was made via consensus. That is the one of the basis for this conversation. The understanding that one can help Wikipedia by asking such questions such as this, and adding valid data without being met with such hostility. New User Person (talk) 01:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article." The thermite theory as represented on Wikipedia is sourced to a "scientific" article in a journal that did not exercise peer review, despite advertising otherwise, and no longer exists. That and three news articles about the study. And the authors are acting far outside their field. Given the weight this seems to hold in the academic community, the articles give the theory the attention it deserves - mentioning it, discussing rebuttals of the theory, and not mentioning it at all in the main 9/11 attacks page. If you think this theory deserves more weight on Wikipedia, you'll have to present sources to show it holds more weight amongst actual experts. I should also note that the deletion of your comments is not some administrator conspiracy to suppress your views. You know why they were deleted, you quoted the reason yourself in one of your reposts. You might find yourself taken more seriously at that talk page if you simply got to the point about something specific you think is wrong, and then presented sources you feel support your proposed changes, rather than using 12 kilobytes of text to complain about the state of the page. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Using ad hominem attacks such as this, "I should also note that the deletion of your comments is not some administrator conspiracy to suppress your views", is unnecessary. I never said there was a conspiracy amongst administrators to suppress my, or anyone else's views. I simply stated that another Wikipedia user was 'monitor' the page, deleting any views that don't agree with their own. Don't give any, 'It wasn't an ad hominem attack, I was simply stating there is no conspiracy to suppress your views.". We both know exactly what you were implying. I, also, never used 12 kilobytes of text to make my point, not even close. Most of the 12 kilobytes was previous conversation that was there so it could be referred too, considering it was the basis of the conversation. A post being too long is an really asinine reason not to hear somebody else's views. Citable sources, you say? You mean like this^[3] source used in the main 9/11 Wikipedia page, that fails to have any reliable sources to back it's information. I've already tried to suggest the addition of the thermite source three times, but it was subsequently ignored every time. New User Person (talk) 03:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're not going to accomplish anything with this. Wikipedia's official stance is that the mainstream assessment is reality, and that conspiracy theories about the attacks are (to be short and blunt) bullshit that is only worth discussing as the stupid paranoia that it is. Get over it. Tendentious editing will accomplish nothing except getting you blocked. And before you even try to pretend that you haven't been tendentiously editing, asking for Popular Mechanics's sources is tendentious. They are reliable source, period.

As far as I'm concerned, the only further responses to your posts on this matter should be "you're just wasting everyone's time, stop."

In short: you're just wasting everyone's time, stop. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do I communicate directly with the new user person who wrote to me tonight?

To any friendly editor, monitor, patrol, wiki-cop, etc.,

Tonight I received via email the following message.

I decided to use your old archived discussion on the 9/11 conspiracies talk page to start a discussion of my own recently. I could really use the support of someone who shares the same point of view as my own. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy). Thanks, New User Person (talk) 03:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I simply want to contact this person. How do I do that? Please advise. Thank you. MG

Beasley Reece (talk) 05:20, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The word cisgender at the Caitlyn Jenner article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Caitlyn Jenner#Should all of the uses of cisgender be included in this article?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOCPJ/TOCPJ-2-7.pdf

[2] ttp://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOCPJ/TOCPJ-2-7.pdf

[3] ttp://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a5688/debunking-911-myths-flight-93/

[1]

[2]

[3]

@@ Line 123: / Line 123: @@
 :''"If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article."'' The thermite theory as represented on Wikipedia is sourced to a "scientific" article in a journal that did not exercise peer review, despite advertising otherwise, and no longer exists. That and three news articles about the study. And the authors are acting far outside their field. Given the weight this seems to hold in the academic community, the articles give the theory the attention it deserves - mentioning it, discussing rebuttals of the theory, and not mentioning it at all in the main 9/11 attacks page. If you think this theory deserves more weight on Wikipedia, you'll have to present sources to show it holds more weight amongst actual experts. I should also note that the deletion of your comments is not some administrator conspiracy to suppress your views. You know why they were deleted, you quoted the reason yourself in one of your reposts. You might find yourself taken more seriously at that talk page if you simply got to the point about something specific you think is wrong, and then presented sources you feel support your proposed changes, rather than using 12 kilobytes of text to complain about the state of the page. [[User:Someguy1221|Someguy1221]] ([[User talk:Someguy1221|talk]]) 02:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 ::Using ad hominem attacks such as this, "I should also note that the deletion of your comments is not some administrator conspiracy to suppress your views", is unnecessary. I never said there was a conspiracy '''amongst administrators''' to suppress my, or anyone else's views. I simply stated that another Wikipedia user was 'monitor' the page, deleting any views that don't agree with their own. Don't give any, 'It wasn't an ad hominem attack, I was simply stating there is no conspiracy to suppress your views.". We both know '''exactly''' what you were implying. I, also, never used 12 kilobytes of text to make my point, not even close. Most of the 12 kilobytes was previous conversation that was there so it could be referred too, considering it was the basis of the conversation. A post being too long is an really asinine reason not to hear somebody else's views. Citable sources, you say? You mean like this<ref>http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a5688/debunking-911-myths-flight-93/</ref> source used in the main 9/11 Wikipedia page, that fails to have any reliable sources to back it's information. I've already tried to suggest the addition of the thermite source three times, but it was subsequently ignored every time. [[User:New User Person|New User Person]] ([[User talk:New User Person|talk]]) 03:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
+:::You're not going to accomplish anything with this.  [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/September_11_conspiracy_theories|Wikipedia's official stance]] is that the mainstream assessment is reality, and that conspiracy theories about the attacks are (to be short and blunt) bullshit that is only worth discussing as the stupid paranoia that it is.  Get over it.  [[WP:TEND|Tendentious editing]] will accomplish nothing except getting you blocked.  And before you even try to pretend that you haven't been tendentiously editing, asking for Popular Mechanics's sources is tendentious.  They are reliable source, period.
+:::As far as I'm concerned, the only further responses to your posts on this matter should be "you're just wasting everyone's time, stop."
+:::In short: you're just wasting everyone's time, stop.  [[User:Ian.thomson|Ian.thomson]] ([[User talk:Ian.thomson|talk]]) 12:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 {{Reflist}}

THC Science

Bringing Science to the Cannabis Conversation!

Cannabis Ruderalis

Revision as of 12:05, 26 September 2015