Talk:Jim Hoffman

Researcher vs. CT

I think suggesting that WTC 7 was deliberately dynamited amounts to a conspiracy theory. It is, well, a theory about a conspiracy. That is more specific than just "researcher" - he could be researching the DNA of unidentified victims, for example. JFW | T@lk 01:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's a conspiracy theory. Unfortunately some people want to eradicate that term from all articles, even when used appropriately. Rhobite 03:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The appopriate use of the term "conspiracy theory" would also equate its use when referring to the official story, which has yet to be conclusively proven and is merely theory. (Coconuteire, can't sign in) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.206.11.249 (talk) 12:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

"Some people" = Ombudsman. JFW | T@lk 07:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Please stop spamming 'conspiracy theorist' in here. The individual does scientific research.Bov 01:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Where did this guy learn how to impliment the scientific method? Where did he go to college? --130.191.17.38 20:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

He attended the University of Massachussetts (not sure which one), if I remember correctly. He's a software engineer, as am I. We are generally taught how to implement the scientific method. Coconuteire 02:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing scientific about this 9/11 stuff. JFW | T@lk 09:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Attacks on Hoffman

I'm removing this section:

"Hoffman received a Most Reliable 9/11 Researcher best-of-2005 award; however, there is evidence [1] that as Hoffman presents 9-11 information he conceals much of the same exculpatory evidence omitted from the 9/11 Commission Report."

Tom, the 'evidence' this person is talking about is from Gerard Holmgren. Please read at least the front page on his website. Here's an excerpt:

As you can see, the scenario of using real planes creates a logistical nightmare compared to the piddling problem of a few witnesses to the craft, and easily marginalized conspiracy nuts analyzing video - easily suppressed by a compliant media.

He has many many attacks of Hoffman all over the internet and you will understand what he is about once you start to actually read them -- please do read them before restoring these links. Holmgren believes that commercial jets did not hit the WTC towers and that Hoffman plagarized all his ideas. Holmgren is probably best known for his belief that none of the eye witnesses to the Pentagon attack are believable - over 100 testimonies all documented online - although he himself admitted to never having even been to DC (he lives outside the US). He claimed that one of the witnesses probably didn't exist and unfortunately this information was used to attack David Ray Griffin on his one and only Democracy Now! interview -

AMY GOODMAN: Chip Berlet, the charges that David Ray Griffin makes, the questions he says are not answered, the implications of what he is saying, for example, a missile hitting the Pentagon as opposed to the plane, and then what happened to the passengers on board that plane?

CHIP BERLET: Well, that's an example, and not to mention, there are a number of internet researchers have done internet searches and said they cannot find actually any witnesses who saw the plane hit the Pentagon, who weren't government employees. But if you go to searches on local newspapers for when people talked to their magazines, there were hundreds of witnesses who saw a jet commercial airliner hit the Pentagon. You cannot find them on the internet because they're not there. One of the people that Griffin relies on is this -- is a researcher named Holmgren, who goes into great lengths say that he can’t find this witness, Dave Winslow. He went on to say that Dave Winslow probably doesn't exist and if he does, he should come forward. Dave Winslow is an A.P. Radio reporter. If you pick up the "Washingtonian magazine" for September, 2002, there's a picture of Dave Winslow and an interview of what he saw. That's the substandard research being relied on here.

AMY GOODMAN: David ray griffin.

The New Pearl Harbor: A Debate On A New Book That Alleges The Bush Administration Was Behind The 9/11 Attacks

And Tom, the Digitalstyledesigns award link is not significant relative to the other information about Hoffman on here. It is a list that Jan Hoyer came up with on her own and is not a recognized award by a particular organization oustide of her own website. She is a photographer and activist and it is out of place on this page given the other citations.

Those who support missiles, holograms, UFOs and such will likely attack this page increasingly over time because Hoffman is one of the few researchers to take on the 'no-plane' scenarios of 9/11. I'll consider adding a section on that aspect if it becomes necessary. Bov 19:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm content to leave the material out, though I can't say it looks a good deal more non-sensical than a lot of other stuff. Really, it is striking how those who adhere to the 'mainstream' alternative theories, regard those who question the 'mainstream' alternative theories. Maybe we need a page for Researchers questioning researchers questioning the official account of 9/11.

Tom, although it may seem strange to you that anyone could believe the towers could have been demolished with explosives, there is not a great deal of comparison between missiles, UFOs and holograms, and the use of explosives to bring a building down. As Steven Jones points out, explosive demolitions are the only precedent in history for collapses and destruction of steel framed buildings - missiles, UFOs and holograms have no rational precedents in construction or elsewhere which we can apply to this case. Many feel that the promotions of 'no plane' theories are designed to discredit all 9/11 research, although many people with genuine beliefs in these areas will simply promote them, and become frustrated with being labelled as 'disinformation.'

Disinformation campaigns were done in JFK:

"The 9/11 Truth Movement gives one insight why the term 'conspiracy theorist' came to be shorthand for 'discredited whacko' in the invisible guidebook of mainstream media. Suddenly, it's not hard to understand why the obvious anomalies in the JFK assassination never received proper attention in accepted media channels. If you have just as many nutty theories about the driver of the limo turning around and shooting JFK as you have honest scientific inquiries about the real probability of multiple shooters, the wheat drowns in the chaff."

-- Sander Hicks, author of "The Big Wedding"

"A similar disinformation campaign was waged to discredit the citizen investigations into the coup against President Kennedy -- people popped up claiming inside knowledge who were used to misdirect the investigators. The most memorable occurrence was during Jim Garrison's prosecution of Clay Shaw, a CIA agent who participated in the plot against Kennedy. This episode was nicely dramatized in Oliver Stone's film JFK. Garrison's legal team had found a witness who claimed to have participated in meetings with Shaw, Lee Harvey Oswald and others, but on the stand, the man's claims of participation were totally shredded by his claims that he had fingerprinted his daughter before and after she went to college to prove that she was the same person (and therefore, this obviously insane testimony was used to discredit the genuine evidence that Garrison had used to prosecute Shaw). Shaw was found innocent by the jury (even though subsequent research and official admissions revealed he was CIA), although that jury did admit that there had been a conspiracy to kill JFK, they merely didn't believe that Shaw was a participant."

Jan Hoyer left this comment on my talk page:[2]

"It is correct that I am not with an organization and the Best of 911 Truth Media 2005 list was created from my own experiences. However, for the sake of accuracy, the remaining comment about my position is not an accurate or fair portrayal. As a co-founder of the 9/11 Visibility Project, and former staff of 911Truth.org (for nearly two years, until 10-05) my involvement has been considerably deeper than "a photographer and activist". I have worked closely with a great many founding leaders of the 911 truth movement, and therefore believe that I have a good finger on the pulse of the movement.

(disclaimer: After 911Truth.org rejected Jim Hoffman as a board member, I left that organization to work with Jim Hoffman and his team)"

Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed copied paragraph

I removed the paragraph copied from 911research.wtc7.net. That page says it's copyrighted. If we have permission to use it, we can discuss putting it back in. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Two strange categories

This article is put in the category "Articles lacking sources". Which part of the article is lacking ressources?

And which criteria are there for putting someone in the "conspiracy theorist" category.?

--EyesAllMine 16:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

For 'articles lacking sources', that's because of the citation request -- "Hoffman's work has been featured in articles in Science News, Scientific American, Science Digest [citation needed]." Using that template causes the atricle to be put in that category. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

For "conspiracy theorist", I would ask if his allegations have these Conspiracy theory#Features. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your information. But where does that Conspiracy theory#Features list come from? has it got any sources? --EyesAllMine 17:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory#References, especially Melley and Fenster, if I remember. You could also speak to Cberlet and Adhib. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I find hte use of the word conspiracy POV. According to Wikipedias own article "The term "conspiracy theory" is used by scholars and in popular culture to identify a type of folklore similar to an urban legend, having certain regular features, especially an explanatory narrative which is constructed with certain naive methodological flaws. The term is also used pejoratively to dismiss allegedly misconceived, paranoid or outlandish rumors." Which point on the source missing list does Jim Hoffmans research fits?--EyesAllMine 17:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't say that he does fit. I didn't add the category. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Well - maybe Morton Devonshire has something to say then? --EyesAllMine 17:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Don Paul and Jim Hoffman co-authored a book called Waking up from our Nightmare: The 9/11 Crimes in New York City. The premise of the book is that a secret team, within the United States government itself, was responsible for ensuring the 9/11 attacks were carried out -- Paul and Hoffman say that a conspiracy was required to accomplish this, and Paul and Hoffman have presented this as an alternative theory (aka conspiracy theory) to the mainstream media/911 Commission report account. Nothing pejorative about that, just a way to explain that Paul and Hoffman are among the recent authors who offer this alternative view that by its very nature requires a governmental conspiracy to accomplish -- a requirement that they specifically identify and embrace in their book. Morton devonshire 20:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Well I haven't read the book, so I dont know if that is true, but by that criteria we should also label the official theory a conspiracy theory, wouldn't you agree? Just to clarify even more: The official explantion has for example not been peer-revieved. --EyesAllMine 20:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Here we are again back to this "official" business. YES, there is an official report, prepared by the 911 Commission, which was commissioned, of course, by Congress to investigate mostly why the intelligence failures took place. However, neither the Congress nor the President have taken it upon themselves to endorse the findings in the report, so there is no official version of the facts -- it's a report of finding by the 911 Commission, that's it. There's no peer review, because the 911 Commission, as of yet, has no peer. In addition, there's the mainstream media account of the facts, which closely resembles the facts reported in the 911 Commission report, and that mainstream media account has been peer-reviewed thousands upon thousands of times by ambitious, conflict-hungry journalists from across the world and who work for thousands upon thousands of separate ownership groups. Journalists thrive on finding their own angle on a story, getting their first, carping about fellow journalists, and biggest of all, poking in holes in governments -- if you can uncover a government conspiracy, you are golden. Just ask Woodward and Bernstein. Have at it! Morton devonshire 20:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow you ... I must not call it "the official theory"? But all the reports are funded by the government, arent they? And actually, there is a group forming now to make a peer-reviev of the NIST report, as far as I remember. So it will eventually be peer-revieved. But ... I need more proof of Jim Hoffman being a conspiracy theorist. Everybody can label everything, but we must be able to verify it, right? And I stil find labeling someone/body a conpiracy-whatever is POV. Ive looked at his website and it seems to be a large collection of evidence etc. Could you point out the conpiracy part for me? --EyesAllMine 20:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

You've just ignored everything about the Hoffman/Paul book. Morton devonshire 21:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

No ... but I haven't found anybody else stating the book as a conspiracy book. A lot the reviews goes on about the facts, and exposing the lies, the book is asking questions and beeing critical to the official main stream account. But being critical and asking questions is kind of healthy, kind of a peer-review process. It not "conspiracy-theorizing". If he is a conpiracy theorist - then he would also be one at his website - but I can't find his conpiracy-theory - I can see that he askes a lot of questions though --EyesAllMine 21:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Read his book. Morton devonshire 21:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually his being attacked from others for not supporting the pod-theory, and is being called a disinfo agent! I find his site very sober. --EyesAllMine 21:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Morton: I still find the use of the word conspiracy POV. According to Wikipedias own article "The term "conspiracy theory" is used by scholars and in popular culture to identify a type of folklore similar to an urban legend, having certain regular features, especially an explanatory narrative which is constructed with certain naive methodological flaws. The term is also used pejoratively to dismiss allegedly misconceived, paranoid or outlandish rumors." Which point on the list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory#Features does Jim Hoffmans research fits? --EyesAllMine 13:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

What Hoffman and Paul suggest is a conspiracy, so don't shy away from that. You and Ombudsman have a problem with the word, because you think it somehow taints the ideas. The fundamental fact is that conspiracy is a very good way to describe these ideas, as they require, well, a conspiracy. It's also a very common descriptor in English for these kinds of theories, so it helps people to understand what it is a person is talking about. Please understand that these theories, even if you called them "Gospel Truth Theories", would still be highly controversial, and no amount of wordsmithing on your part will change that. Ombudsman lost this battle already with the Wikipedia Admin machine. Morton devonshire 06:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I have a problem with the "Conspiracy theorist" label, if it doesnt fit. Do you think Bush is a conspiracy theorist as well? --EyesAllMine 00:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I think Bush is the President of the United States. I'm sorry that you have a problem. Morton devonshire 18:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Bush and the government, the CIA etc is also working with a conspiracy theory. But we dont label them conspiracy theorist do we? I don't. --EyesAllMine 20:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I think what you mean to say is that Bush is a conspiracist, and not a conspiracy theorist. Those that advance and write about theories claiming that he is a conspiracist are conspiracy theorists. Morton devonshire 01:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracist is already taken, with a different meaning. Maybe Conspirator? or Bonesman... Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Going back to Morton's comment, Conspirator sounds like the right word (though I think most researchers in the 9/11 Truth Movement would regard Bush as being somewhat outside the main loop of the 9/11 conspiracy). Going a step further, back to EyesAllMine, I believe the idea is to express that "Bush and the government, the CIA etc" claim that 9/11 was a conspiracy of 19 Arab terrorists backed by Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, though an average U.S. citizen wouldn't think to refer to the government's contention as a conspiracy theory. Kaimiddleton 07:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Further, not just any theory about a conspiracy is a conspiracy theory. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly ... Alien predatores ruling the world secretly would be easily labeled a conspiracy theory. But why should a critical review of the story of 9/11 be labeled thus? --EyesAllMine 18:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

If it has the features of a conspiracy theory it's not unreasonable to point that out. I think the article title 9/11 conspiracy theories is fine, and the category "conspiracy theorists" as well. Whether or not Jim Hoffman belongs in that category I have not yet decided. Honestly, his inclusion or not isn't high on my list of things to work out. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

He clearly doesn't fit. Not even according to this list (lacking proper citation) that has come up a couple of times. There is actually not one point on the list that matches the work of Jim Hoffman. So please, if Morton or you can't come up with a more precise argument, I can conclude that just because Morton thinks he is an conspiracy theorist, that doesn't make him one.--EyesAllMine 07:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

You obviously have never read his book. Morton devonshire 02:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Morton, I couldn't agree with you more. MortonsSockpuppet 17:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

He, he - that's sweet :) --EyesAllMine 00:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Fancy Wording

"In order to more easily research the many complex details of the September 11th attacks, Hoffman put together a collection of original hypertext pages of information. By developing a software tool for creating hierarchies of web pages, with references linking to source documents, he was able to quickly navigate to any of its many pages. Originally developed as a research tool, the system later evolved into the 911-Research website."

Does this mean anything other than that he created a website? Leaving it here for a week. If I don't get a response in 7 days I'm editing this pompous piece of bull.

--Mmx1 18:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing 'bull' about it. It means that Hoffman developed the site with a unique use of code to facilitate its function as research tool. No other website like these exist except the ones that Hoffman has created. It was modelled off a design for Hoffman's 'Justice For Woody' site, used during a murder investigation in Vermont in 2001. Bov 02:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

First, that was a copyvio, as it's ripped right from his site, which is not public domain. Unique use of code? Name one. Pages linking to other pages. Huh. never heard of that before. --Mmx1 02:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

>>First, that was a copyvio, as it's ripped right from his site, which is not public domain I'll reword it. 24.4.180.197 01:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't answer how it's unique. linking articles and citations isn't new. That's what wikipedia does. If you can name it, please do put it on the page, but as it reads from the site it indicates to me nothing more than that he put together a webpage connecting source documents. --Mmx1 01:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not about linking citations, it's about navigating through several hundred pages of info. How about this: "Hoffman created a website design tool enabling easy navigation through large collections of pages assembled in hierarchical structures. It uses a two-tiered system of navigation panels consisting of tabs and tables of contents. Highlighting of the tab and the tab's table-of-contents' entry for the current page allows the user to see the page's location and context within the website." 24.4.180.197 17:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

You mean vertical and horizontal navigation bars? Take a look up top. Wikipedia has highlighted horizontal tabs, too. If he has a patent on it, it's fair game for "unique". IIRC the javascript online reference has a similar layout. --Mmx1 18:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually vertical and horizontal navigation bars and linking articles and citations is not the issue - the issue is the ease of access to hundreds of pages of historical information for use in research of the event. Looking up here at wikipedia, for example, I see no way to, in about 2 clicks, access every page on the site without doing a search. You can do that with Hoffman's site. Bov 01:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Javascript reference. No horizontal bar, but you can get to every page in *one* click from the horizontal sidebar. --Mmx1 04:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The example you gives has frames, with all their disadvantages. Hoffman's system doesn't use frames, although he has in the past, here: http://www.msri.org/about/sgp/jim/geom/minimal/index.html. Bov 17:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I was impressed by the website's excellent design. Sources and quotes are properly attributed and easy tho follow and research. Wikipedia is special in that it is an easy to use well designed resource, and so is wtc7. Perhaps good site design isn't unique per se but it is special. Speaking of site design, that is what the end product of the implementation of the site serving system. And while the end result may be spewcial but non-unique, apparently the implementation is unique. I suggest leaving the paragraph as is. It is clear and can't be much better within the limits of the ambiguous English language. 24.118.99.41 06:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Website gone?

The site 911 Research says that there is no wesbite configured to the address. Is it temporarily down? If its permanently gone, we should remove or correct the links on the page.--Bill 14:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Links section

We seem to be having a revert war over these blogs. Well as they all were written by Jim (see http://911research.wtc7.net/re911/about.html) and the audio blog is an interview with him. To me they all seem on topic for this page. --Salix alba (talk) 22:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Revisions

I added several citations and info per the recent requests. I don't yet know the format for references, so did them as external links. Please correct them or explain how here (or link) and I'll correct them. 24.4.180.197 01:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I see Sloane just reverts wholesale and ignores discussion. I'll gladly play along. 198.207.168.65 21:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The next time Sloane reverts the changes, he will have gone beyond the 3 reverts rule. 74.71.26.72 18:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The nexus of the dispute seems to center around

1. Whether Jim is a 9/11 researcher or 9/11 conspiracy theorist
2. Which section should go first, mathematics of 9/11

As to the first I'd prefer to call Jim a 9/11 researcher as thats how he describes himself. As to the second I don't really mind. Oh and can everyone please use some edit summaries on their edits, it helps to keep track of whats going on. --Salix alba (talk) 18:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I wonder how long it will be until 9/11 researcher undergoes Pejoration. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I also support that Jim is a 9/11 researcher. I don't find Tom's version of the page 'balanced.' I don't care whether the math or 9/11 goes first, but the rest I'm reverting. bov 22:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Tom, I don't see why you'd revert to a version that has all sorts of things wrong - i.e., claiming citations are needed to show what Jim's websites cover - apparently just to reinsert the Salon reference. This seems like an abuse of reversion use. Why don't you just put that reference back in, instead of reverting to a highly problematic version? It doesn't help anything. bov 19:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

If there's something wrong, fix it. Don't just revert.--Sloane 20:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I did fix it, by getting rid of all the wrong stuff in the latest version, rev to the one before it and added in the Salon link as Tom mentioned. You're the one who is reverting, so why tell others they can't but you can? bov

Reverts by Sloane

Sloane keeps reverting each version after any changes are made, to a version that includes, for example, a claim about nanotechnology with a citation request next to it. Why does Sloane continue to include a claim that has no citation?! I am making an effort at dialog on here because I'm tired of having to revert his changes over and over while he continues to revert to versions which are packed with citation requests that were fulfilled after the versions he keeps reverting to! He seems to be intentionally wasting the time of people trying to sort out the citation requests. bov 22:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Actually you're the one who's reverting to pretty much the version of 14 august. --Sloane 22:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you explain why you think your version is better? It might help if you provided an argument to suport your version. I'm actually having a hard time trying to figure out the differences as swaping the two sections around messes up the article diffs. It might be easier to see whats happeing if in one edit the two sections are swapped and then any content changed maded in a seperate revision. Please, please please, meaningful edit summaries. --Salix alba (talk) 22:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for not providing meaningful edit summaries. I can summarize the current problematic parts which Sloane keeps reverting:

1) evidence of nanotech - I have none, Sloane apparently has none, yet he keeps reinserting that part of the sentence with a call for a citation. We have no citation so let it go! If no one is stepping up to see the connection, we have none.

2) further citation of that sentence - "the discovery of new, three-dimensional morphologies for modeling block co-polymers" citations #4 and #5 already cover this, so unless you can show that they do not, please do not post a citation request.

3) removal of websites created by Hoffman- the reference to 911review under 'Websites designed by Hoffman' is removed by Sloane (in his reverts, which he apparently doesn't notice). 911research is different from 911review which is different from wtc7, and each should have a link.

4) removal of all the internal links - now Jim is only linked to 911 truth movement? Why? It makes no sense when he is listed on the 9/11 researchers page.

5) calling jim a conspiracy theorist - I disagree. The vast majority of his work is research, not conspiracy theory, and the websites are known and referred to as research sites. Conspiracy theorist does not reflect the vast majority of his work.

6) removal of sections of the first paragraph. No explantion for why the first paragraph can only be one sentence or why the information which was already on there was removed.

bov 22:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

2. Those are just links to his site, no independent claims that he discovered them. 3. One website is linked, and the other is accessible through the site linked. Wikipedia is not a web directory. 4. Internal links were removed according to the layoutguide. 5. Actually in my last version he wasn't even called a CT. 6. I don't mind adding more, I'm just reverting the constant full reverts of the page. --Sloane 23:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

2. The links are on his site because he created them. 3. There is a section that supposedly describes what sites he has created so why can they not be listed? How is it making it a web directory to list 3 sites in the section that is for that? 4. what layoutguide are you referring to? Does it say that each person can only have one internal link? Jim is a researcher, is in the 9/11 truth movement and has been referenced extensively by 2 other researchers. These links were all there previously. 6. Let's no one do reverts. bov 00:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:LAYOUT "The "See also" section provides an additional list of internal links as a navigational aid, and it should ideally not repeat links already present in the article." and WP:NOT "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links". Why list three sites that are entwined? One is sufficient. --Sloane 15:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess if you're going to take out every link in the 'see also' sections of pages of wikipedia that are redundant, then you have a LOT of work to do, since virtually every page on this site does this. You could start here, where the links or references to one essay, The Paranoid Style, occurs over 5 times on this one page.

Given that this is the case - that such redundancies are abundant on most pages on wikipedia, and that many of them have far more traffic than this tiny page which is all of a few parapgraphs long, but that you are focusing so hard on eliminating less than a handful of links - it would appear that your goal is more about deleting links from Hoffman's page, not to improving wikipedia or it's articles. The same goes for the logic of having a section about websites designed by Hoffman, but only allowing a single one to be listed, when 3 exist. Each of Hoffman's sites are different, with a different layout and focus. One focuses on the twin towers, one on B7 and one focuses on reviewing other websites and essays. The layout for 911 review is very different from the other 2, and the site has a different purpose.

Now that I'm here - brought here by your changes - maybe I should start a section on the details of the websites, so that each one of them could be included. You seem to be showing that readers don't understand the differences, so maybe this needs a write-up. Actually, come to think of it, maybe each website needs it's own page. This was suggested at one point, so maybe my time will be better spent creating new pages, since it's apparently become too redundant to have a link to them on here.

bov 00:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget WP:IAR, a policy which overrides all others. If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia's quality, ignore them. Is the article clearer with the sites clearer with the sites he created clearly listed - I think so. --Salix alba (talk) 08:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to give an example of another page I have worked on extensively: googol. Yes, believe it or not, I like to edit wikipedia for things other than 9/11, and mathematics is one of my interests. Googol is a pretty simple concept, yet, in my opinion, the article is interesting and covers a few side topics without getting bogged down in minutiae; take a look at the page. You'll see that the article text mentions large number and googolplex. These are then repeated in the "See also" section. Why? Well, because they are core concepts regarding googol that deserve to be mentioned in a summary section that the "See also" links represent. I think a strong case has been made by myself and others in this discussion that the links under "See also" for Jim Hoffman are core concepts of the page. They say to the reader: if you want to learn more about the topics central to this person, then these are the links to follow. I will persistently replace those links on the "See also" section of this page. Kaimiddleton 17:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• From WP:LAYOUT: "The "See also" section provides an additional list of internal links as a navigational aid, and it should ideally not repeat links already present in the article."--Sloane 15:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, you're repeating yourself. I and others have made a sufficient case that this statement is not all-inclusive of the intent of the "See also" section. Kaimiddleton 18:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

"See Also" section

I have switched back some of the old "see also" parts. In all the various pages I've edited I've regarded "see also" as a section for major further references regarding the subject at hand. These references have stood on this page for a long time and there is a strong concensus for having them as far as I can see. This is a short article; there's no strong reason to edit down, I think. Kaimiddleton 17:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC) Links in the "see also" section are constantly being removed. I have replaced them and list these with my justification for including them:

• 9/11 Truth Movement

Hoffman states he is a part of this movement

• 9/11 conspiracy theories - 7 World Trade Center

This is the section of the conspiracy theories page his work is relevant to

• Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11

Hoffman is listed on this page

• Steven E. Jones

Hoffman has worked closely with Steven Jones

• David Ray Griffin

Hoffman has worked closely with David Ray Griffin

These are all sufficient conditions to warrant inclusion. There has been no discussion here when these links have been removed. I consider that an aggressive editorial action. Stating that the last three links above should not be included due to WP:NOT or WP:NPOV or WP:LAYOUT are unsupported and in my opinion incorrect. Kaimiddleton 00:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• From WP:LAYOUT: "The "See also" section provides an additional list of internal links as a navigational aid, and it should ideally not repeat links already present in the article."--Sloane 15:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it is correct that we should not link in 'see also' what is already linked in the body of the page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

In wikipedia edits I have done on various articles I have used the "See also" section to see related topics of central interest. Cf. googol which mentions googolplex in the text as well as the "See also". A pedantic adherance to WP:LAYOUT does not serve here. The articles I've listed above under "See also" are quite naturally what a reader interested in Hoffman's central work would be directed to next. To limit these is unnatural and thus falls under this editor's interpretation of WP:IAR. I could name another debate I've seen lately. I've done lots of work on Timeline of evolution. The rules say that a related topic should only be wiki-linked at its first occurrence. But the page is rather long, so it made sense to give some topics a second list if the first occurrence was far up in the article. In this case, after some discussion, it seemed to make sense to ignore the rule where it prevented us from maintaining wikipedia's quality. Kaimiddleton 06:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of reverts

Now that I'm attaching myself to the changes that User:Levi P. is reverting -- apparently the content of the changes has zero value if they are not summarized -- let's talk about the content and why you think they must be reverted. bov 21:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The source cited calls Hoffman's beliefs "CT". It also refers to him as a researcher. Leaving out one or the other misrepresents the source. I reverted, perhaps hastily, the anon user because there was no edit summary, and the first edit I saw was the unexplained deletion of the sourced assertion that Hoffman is a CT. Levi P. 21:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

That source is one source that Hoffman is doing research. There are many other sources that do not refer to him as CT which I can put there instead. I don't see him as CT, others do, but there is no agreement in this area. Those who wish him to be considered a CT will continue to insist that source stay there as the only source and then say he must be called CT because of that. Circular logic which I disagree with. bov 22:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The source clearly stated he is a CT. Thus no problem.--Sloane 22:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a discussion of the reverts, not CT vs no CT -- please stop reverting. If you have to have CT, fine, we can debate that. But to revert the whole page for a single phrase is wrong.bov 23:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Does the salon article actually call Hoffman a Conspiracy theorist? He is first introduced in the article as a 9/11 researcher. The CT reference in the article is oblique at best, indeed the article actually calls the official story a conspiracy theory! --Salix alba (talk) 16:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Our article does not call him a conspiracy theorist. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

50% of the time it does! Maybe its some strange quantum state? Current version is better. --Salix alba (talk) 17:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

! :-)) Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Lead

"Hoffman has been writing about the collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) and other 9/11 conspiracy theories."

That doesn't make sense at all. The collapse of the WTC is not a 9/11 conspiracy theory, it's just something that happened.--Sloane 20:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

See also

Kaimidletion you still haven't given one good reason why this article should repeat links. Why does this article have to break with the manual of style guideline? --Sloane 20:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Sloane, if you're so concerned with repeating links, why do you not address the repeated links issue on Berlet's conspiracy theories page, which clearly has a much higher impact that this page? Why does that article have to break with the manual of style guideline? Locewtus 21:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Do you expect me to edit every single page on wikipedia? Because other articles might set bad examples, doesn't mean this article has to follow. --Sloane 23:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anyone saying anything about 'every single page.' Only one page. It's right here - Conspiracy theory. How hard could it be? Are you interested in making changes because of the principle, which you repeatedly refer to, or because you simply want to delete all links to or from Jim Hoffman? bov 00:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

What are you guys babbling about? I don't even know this Berlet dude, why am I supposed to be editing his article? And why are you all of the sudden bringing up Conspiracy theory article? And I'm not deleting links, I'm just deleting the REPEATS of those links, as I try to in every article.--Sloane 00:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Sloane, you asked me about the manual of style guidelines. They are just that, guidelines. I and others have argued conclusively that slavishly following a guideline is not what wikipedia is about. Wikipedia is about presenting a useful, informative and encyclopedic resource to the reader. If the "see also" section only has one link in it, then why even have a "see also" section. It makes much more sense to have a group of links that connect to the core points a reader might want to follow up on. If I were to put 20 links in this section then I would agree that this was an inappropriate number, unless the entry for Jim Hoffman were to grow enormous. But as it stands the article contains some 1200 words. I hardly think six or seven links constitutes some lavish spreading of links upon the author of one of the very highest ranking 9/11 websites on the internet. How can you disagree with that? Unless you're just being legalistic and trying to find a technicality upon which to hinder the documentation on wikipedia of this important topic. Kaimiddleton 16:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

But why is that necessary? You still haven't given one good reason. The core points are already linked. Articles normally never repeat links in the see also. --Sloane 17:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Lead

Jim Hoffman (born 1957) is a software engineer from Alameda, California who became notable for his coverage of the September 11, 2001 attacks, which he believes were carried out by the United States government. His work has been classified by various media under 9/11 conspiracy theories.

What's wrong with this? It clearly states his beliefs and notes that he has been described as a conspiracy theorist.

Current lead is bad, "who has become notable for his 9/11 research and/or conspiracy theories" makes little sense and is too ambiguous. Either it's "and" or it's "or" --Sloane 00:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I asked where you got his bio info and you haven't yet shown me - please state which article, which page, or provide a link. I know that he is not 'from' Alameda, CA, so I know for a fact that part is wrong. We need to have correct info. Similarly, a ref to his specific positions - which you have also wrongly described in your wording - should not be in line 2 of the page. bov 19:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

SALON ARTICLE, PAGE THREE--Sloane 19:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC) http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2006/06/27/911_conspiracies/index2.html

So here's from the Salon article:
Many of "Loose Change's" most vociferous online critics actually agree with its principal conclusion that the government is behind the attack, and only disagree with the film's specific 9/11 story line. Deep down the rabbit hole one day, I found Jim Hoffman, a 49-year-old software engineer in Alameda, Calif., and one of the most diligent 9/11 researchers in the movement. Hoffman, who runs 9-11 Research and 9-11 Review, two enormous troves of attack-related documentation and analysis, has looked into the film's claims more thoroughly than just about anyone else online. Though he agrees with Avery that the government was behind 9/11, he finds much of "Loose Change" wanting. "Sifting Through 'Loose Change,'" Hoffman's point-by-point critique of the movie, is withering. He discovers flaws in just about every second claim in "Loose Change," and he points to a mountain of evidence to rebut two of the film's central arguments, the idea that passenger planes didn't crash into the Pentagon and into a field in Shanksville. Kaimiddleton 20:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC) Can you guys explain the debate that's going on here? Kaimiddleton 20:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I asked to see which reference Sloane was using when he added the info on Hoffman's dob and place of origin, which he hadn't specified up until now, just saying to go look in the refs, which would be a waste of my time when he knew where it was. But the article does not say Hoffman is 'from' Alameda, it says he is 'in' Alameda, so the description as it is now is incorrect. bov 20:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I also don't think a video link should go in the first 2 lines, and I don't see that being done for other people's bio pages. If someone wants to find a picture and add it that's fine with me, but a video is bizarre to put there. I don't have any pictures myself. bov 05:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Lead and See Also Section

The page will not stand as all of Hoffman's work being referred to only as "conspiracy theory" when the majority of it is scientific research of the attacks and analysis of the demolitions. We'd already agreed on here to include both forms of the descriptions of his work. Additionally, the demolition hypothesis page does not use the term "conspiracy theorists" throughout because, as stated by Tom B.,

"Controlled demolition is not a conspiracy theory, it is a hypothesis to explain the collapse of the World Trade Center. While the article ought to mention its important role in 9/11 conspiracy theories, it is prejudicial to call those who defend this hypothesis conspiracy theorists at every (or even any) turn." --Thomas Basboll 08:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The majority of Hoffman's work is not conspiracy but analysis, thus to ONLY refer to it as "conpsiracy theory" is incorrect, regardless of what those who disagree with the theories believe.

Secondly, Hoffman is referenced on a number of 9/11 pages on here and those should either be included in the page or listed in the See Also section. Deleting all references to articles which include references to Hoffman is not part of the policy as described at WP:LAYOUT, specifically, on the See Also section. bov 22:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Lol, scientific research. If it's so scientific, why hasn't he sent his work to a science journal? The man raves on about how the pentagon attack was "engineered" by government to look like it was hit by a missile, only a batshit insane conspiracy theorists can come up with something crazy like that. --Sloane 23:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I should simply ask when your last article was published in Nature? Surely you've published in Nature, haven't you? You mean you haven't published in what this "conspiracy theorist" who "raves" has published in? Not yet, huh. How about Scientific American . . . now that's just a popular science magazine so surely you can do better than this crazy person who believes in these nutty theories . . . no? bov

Be sure to include that in an article about me.--Sloane 00:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

This "connecting the dots" stuff has got to come to an end -- violates Wikipedia policy in spades to try to advocate in favor of "controlled demolition" here or anywhere else on Wikipedia. See Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. Please stop. Also, I'm concerned that editors are trying to use a subject's notariety in one field in order to bootstrap the subject's credibility in the field of 9/11 research. Whether Hoffman has or hasn't published in Nature is of no consequence to his opinions about 9/11 theories. Surely you're not claiming that his 9/11 research was published in Nature or Scientific American, are you? Morton devonshire 00:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

If you don't want connecting the dots stuff then tell Sloane to stop inserting statements which don't add to content but are an attempt to "connect the dots" with phrases OUT OF CONTEXT to make researchers look crazy. I added information from Judicial Watch to put a phrase taken from the Salon article in context. JW is NOT a conspiracy site, in fact the DoD gave them the videos exclusively, so there is nothing about connecting the dots here. But now you've deleted that. JW explicitly states that they see the Pentagon no-plane issue as a honeypot issue. This is their view. How is that connecting the dots? Lets take out Sloane's insertion altogether if it cannot be qualified with other support. Sloane's efforts are often to add selective quotes to try to distort the image of anyone who questions the official version of 9/11.

I quoted a reliable source, which illustrated his beliefs. You are the one who added all kinds of gibberish from conspiracy nuts like Alex Jones and that oilempire websites. Also you subverted the lead to make his 9/11 denial legitimate by linking to an article which doesn't even mention the guy!--Sloane 01:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Whether Hoffman has or hasn't published in Nature is of no consequence to his opinions about 9/11 theories, but it establishes that he is capable of performing research and publishing -- he is not someone who is simply selling newspapers or playing football. His 9/11 work uses the scientific method and applies it to the existing body of evidence about the WTC disaster, as was the scientific method required for him to be published in Nature. The fact that he is published in Nature is relevant to a basic attribute of his abilities, showing that he is easily capable of doing highly competent research which others also see as highly competent. No one is saying his specific 9/11 research has been published in Nature, but I'm tired of the constant attempts to malign him on here as being crazy when he is clearly not. bov 01:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

But you ARE borrowing his credibility in one subject in order to try to prop-up his 9/11 research. That's what violates Wikipedia policy. Morton devonshire 01:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not borrowing or propping up anything - I don't need to! His research ability is clearly documented in Science and Nature, so anyone can see that for themselves. But attempts to discredit him on here as being crazy, through selective quoting, will not be allowed to stand. bov 01:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Would you at least take out the stuff trying to prove the conspiracy theories, or counter theories, or counter-double-secret-agent-misdirect theories (aka "honey pots") -- they just doesn't belong here. You've been on Wikipedia since I got here -- do you still not understand NPOV? Morton devonshire 01:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with removing it if we can take out the phrase inserted from Salon which caused it to appear. If that phrase stays then it requires context in order to retain NPOV, otherwise it is POV. And since Judicial Watch is not a 'conspiracy' site, there's nothing bizarre about their viewpoint, whether that viewpoint includes the term honeypot or not. JW is notable. If they say a honeypot issue is happening, then I would expect that a legal organization such as theirs - with a history of 18 lawsuits against Clinton, others against the Secret Service, Bush, etc., and credited with exposing campaign finance fraud schemes - probably know what they're talking about when they use such a term. They've likely had to muck around in some ugly areas doing the work they do. They said the Pentagon videos will likely be released just before the Nov 06 elections, to scare voters and gain votes for Republicans. Recently the DoD confirmed that they will release the videos by Nov. 9th. But I guess it's just coincidence that the videos are being released then, even though the entire reason for their being withheld at all was due to the now well-completed Moussaoui trial. bov 02:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Since Tom and Sloane want the quote on here, the rest will stay to provide context and links. bov 17:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Next project

Now that I'm having to be on here all the time to delete the quotes attempting to malign Hoffman, I guess it's time to start some pages on more 9/11 websites. If I'm going to have to be constantly on here, I might as well make better use of my time and get started on the page about the top ranked website exposing the ommissions and cover-ups of the 9/11 attacks. Or maybe things will die down and I can go back to other things. Don't think about connecting any dots here and becoming a CT yourself; I'm just thinking aloud, nothing more. bov 02:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Snort!

I understand your feelings. We write, "Hoffman believes that, in an attempt to discredit skeptics of the official versions of the attacks, some aspects of the attacks may have been "engineered" to encourage acceptance of "flimsy" 9/11 conspiracy theories..." I find this a bit confusing, though no doubt that was not made to happen on purpose. Do we know that Hoffman really believes that? Maybe 'Hoffaman says that...' would be more neutral if there are doubts, or if he has been co-opted, as I think Victor Thorn said somewhere. Should the doubts expressed by other members of the 'movement' be included here? Or might they themselves be misinformation, or presented so as to appear that way? Hoffman has written[3] that Victor Thorn is really Scott Makufka. Is it not then important to know who Jim Hoffman is, according to Victor Thorn? Or have I myself been taken in by disinformation? The whole section has a wheels-within-wheels element that may confuse the reader. Maybe we would do better to just pull it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, I wrote: Hoffman believes that, in an attempt to discredit skeptics of the mainstream account of the attacks, "the 9/11 planners specifically engineered the attacks in a way that would lead some people to embrace flimsy 9/11 theories," Hoffman further claims: "the government wants people to say that an airplane didn't hit the Pentagon, because the claim makes 9/11 skeptics look silly." which was changed by Bov.--Sloane 03:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

So that claim of Hoffman's is what they say is disinformation? Or the change by Bov? Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

FYI, Victor Thorn and the WING TV site are recognized by most as belligerent attackers whose goal is to discredit the efforts of others, not to inform or to make academic critique. So it's clear what Tom's agenda is to try to post links to that on here. We've had this discussion before so obviously Tom knows what he's doing. Tom is promoting people who call for activists to be "spit on" and write books about Satan. How hard is it to figure out why Tom would post that on here? Even 911blogger won't link to them, and that site links to every single site under the sun related to 9/11. bov 17:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Surely you do not expect people to believe I added the link on purpose to make it look like deliberate disinformation. Why would I do that? To discredit WingTV? You claim to have a negative view of them yourself. Is my adding the link to Joe Quinn's article at Signs of the Times supposed to give you cover so you can seem to oppose me by deleting links to WingTV? Why does one have anything to do with the other? Signs of the Times is run by the late Milton William Cooper's organization, unless I am mistaken. It's not clear why you would try to associate Cooper with Victor Thorn, or vice versa. Is there some connection? Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like you're trying to connect dots here, Tom. bov 21:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

unsourced material

Removed the badly sourced nonsense once again. Unless you find better sources, they go.--Sloane 03:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Judicial Watch is not a conspiracy site. bov 21:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You are not actually referencing Judicial Watch as a source, per WP:RS and WP:CITE. The link is to prisonplanet (not a reliable source). --Aude (talk) 21:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to email Chris Farrell and ask him if he gave the interview or not. I would think if he didn't mean what he said he would ask them to withdraw the interview. bov 23:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that would constitute WP:OR. --Sloane 12:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess that means we'll have to assume that the original article is correct, as much as some may consider the source unreliable, since confirming the information with it's source would apparently constitute something "original," which is verboten on wikipedia. bov 17:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The nice thing about "rev to agreed upon version" is that it is an edit summary anyone can use. I think I will assemble a collection of Universal edit summaries. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS is non-negotiable. Prison planet is not a reliable source to be used here. --Aude (talk) 17:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. Morton devonshire 19:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't care about Prison planet or no Prison planet but Hoffman will not be described solely as a "conspiracy theorist" on here and I will revert versions which attempt to paint him as such. His site is a RESEARCH site and is not ONLY a so-called Conspiracy site. The vast amount of the information on there is in the form of an archive with links to so-called verifiable sources. Locewtus 20:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• He's a conpiracy theorist. Whether you like it or not.--Sloane 13:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

"Hoffman says he knows exactly why the government is being stingy with the videos -- not because it has something to hide about the Pentagon, but because it wants to feed the no-plane theory. It's all part of the plan to "divert attention from the core fraud of the attack -- the Big Lie that the Twin Towers collapsed due to impacts and fires."'[4]

“This is just the sort of wackiness defenders of the Official Story harp on to show how gullible and incompetent we conspiracy theorists are supposed to be.”[5]

"The execution of the September 11, 2001 attack required means possessed only by insiders in the U.S. government, and not by the alleged perpetrators, Osama bin Laden and his minions."[6]

The issue is not whether or not he is a so-called conspiracy theorist but whether he must ONLY be described with that term. My version does not DELETE CT, but includes the more correct version of also describing him as more than a CT. The websites are not solid CT, they are much more, so to limit the description to ONLY CT is simply wrong. Locewtus 19:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals. Concerns relative to this policy can be addressed on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

I seems to me that we have a case of POV pushing here. Sloane et al are intent of pushing a POV of applying the prejoritive term conspiracy theorist and are really dredging the barrel trying to find sources to suport their claims.

If we just write the facts: hes been researching 9/11, he does not beleive the official line, he has proposed alternative explinations. We avoid any POV problems and allow the reader to reach their own conclusions.

I've now listed the article on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies. --Salix alba (talk) 20:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Bov's block log
• Sloane's block log

Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The mainstream sources that write about him (and there are not that many) describe him as a conspiracy theorist, and his work as conspiracy theories. To the extent that he is at all notable, it is for that. The sources that describe his work as conspiracy theory are using an accurate descriptor, not applying a pejorative. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Locewtus, you consider conspiracy theorist "prejoritive". I simply consider it to be an accurate term of describing one's occupation. We have categories and articles on conspiracy theorists and theories on wikipedia, pretty much all other biographies on conspiracy theorists label the person as one so I don't see the big problem. It's sourced, and that's what counts. "My version does not DELETE CT, but includes the more correct version of also describing him as more than a CT." Unless I missed it, I don't think you have a reliable source describing Hoffman as "more than a CT". I'll try to broaden the scope of the description a little, if that will satisfy you guys.-Sloane 20:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Many many people have strongly objected to the constant use of the term "conspiracy theorist" on here to pejoratively label anyone who disagrees with the official version of events on 9/11/01. You yourself are shown to be constantly adding the term to pages: I see that today you added it to Michael Rivero's page - it wasn't enough to call him a "conspiracy theorist," you had to also add the term to the description of his website, as a "conspiracy" website, on the same line. I'm sure a look at your logs will show hundreds of times that you've added the term to any pages which include questioning of the official version of the 9/11 attacks. Many do see it as a big problem that anyone who disagrees with the Bush Administration must be branded on here, and have stated so many times, on this page and on many other pages. One reliable source which addresses the questions of those proposing the hypothesis of the demolitions of the World Trade Center and never once uses the term "conspiracy theorist" is the NIST Frequently Asked Questions page, here. I've attempted to use this example but have it deleted so that only the term "conspiracy theorist" can be used. Locewtus 21:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Lol, the NIST has already been branded by the 9/11 deniers as "government shills". Of course they try to provoke as little as they can and unless I'm missing something, I don't even think the document tells anything about who is advocating these silly ideas. Point is that their faq contains nothing about Hoffman, while our sources do clearly label Hoffman as a conspiracy theorist. Something of which you still have not demonstrated it be "prejoritive". Great that you also pull out the strawman argument that we are censuring criticism of Bush. You don't even have clue as to who I am or what my political beliefs are. Oh and our latest source labels him as a leading conspiracy theorist.[7]--Sloane 22:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Point 1: Ironically, Jim Hoffman has debunked Popular Mechanics. See the 9-11 Research site. Point 2: SOME in the 9/11 movement have accused NIST of being government shills. (Coconuteire, unable to sign in) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.206.11.249 (talk) 12:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

It's fairly obvious that your goal is to paste the "conspiracy theory" label onto everyone who disagrees with Bush's version of events, so regardless of your personal politics, you are making your own choice to brand people with a label used widely to smear. I never said anything about censorship - a stawman on your part - what I said was that many people disagree with the branding that goes on here depending on their position on the events of 9/11. The label of "conspiracy theorist" being applied often to Hoffman has never been in question -- one can cite many articles which brand him with that label to try to demean him or others as crazy, just as you yourself do. Locewtus 01:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Bush's version of events? Lol, you mean the still developing version of events reached by thousands of government officials, scientists, journalists, historians, etc? Many people disagree? Did you CT's hold another zogby poll or something? Practically the only article where I've seen the use of the term conspiracy theory seriously disputed is this one. And I still don't see the problem. You consider it to be highly offensivee. I think it's the most accurate description.--Sloane 06:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Locewtus. Given that the most recent poll by NYT and ABC shows that only 16% of Americans believe that Bush is "telling the truth" about what they knew prior to September 11th, 2001[8], I think it can safely be termed "Bush's version of events." Many people on here do indeed disagree with being shackled with a pejorative label. bov 19:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't make all those other folks conspiracy theorists who believe the WTC was blown up. --Sloane 21:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Just like all the work of Jim Hoffman isn't a "conspiracy theory," nor is it only an archive, but includes the same legitimate questions being advocated by the families themselves, who ask how Building 7 collapsed and what happened with the put options. Yet they are generally never classified as only "conspiracy theorists," even when they openly state that officials lied. Hoffman's work cannot be explained in your single catch-all branding. This is a biography, not a single magazine story. bov 22:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Claiming your government blew up some buildings to kill a bunch of people in a gigantic conspiracy,[9] is considered a conspiracy theory. The whole notion of "just asking question" is ridiculous and serves only to hide a political agenda. When families are asking legitimate questions, they don't get called conspiracy theorists because they're asking legitimate questions. Hoffman is not asking legitimate questions but advocating a conspiracy theory. But don't take me word for it, listen to the sources that are cited.[10][11][12]--Sloane 18:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

No one is saying that Hoffman hasn't been cited as a conspiracy theorist by mainstream media -- Pop Mechanics is used as a source directly by the State Dept to attempt to prove it's case for a gravity-driven collapse. Thus PM naturally will be a source for the use of the term "conspiracy theorist" against its opponents - sure helps if you can label your opponents in a debate. And the goal of 99% of the articles about those who question or challenge the official version is to 'debunk' and make fun of them, so naturally using labels like "9/11 deniers," "conspiracy theorists," etc., serves to further their cause of making the reader believe they inherently deny reality or are likely just inherently paranoid, as all CTs are, as Chip Berlet has so clearly explained in his CT treatise on here.

The fact is, if those who were using the term "conspiracy theory" weren't so frantic about adding it to every possible place they could while at the same time erasing any mention of any other way to describe them, then it wouldn't be so transparently an effort to smear. If they were fine with saying things like "so and so is sometimes referred to as "x" and also referred to as a conspiracy theorist," then it would suggest they had no special agenda except the truth. But it is clearly not. People getting on this page to wipe away any descriptor besides the single phrase of "conspiracy theorist," dozens and dozens of times, make it clear what the intention is - labeling, branding via a particular pov to try to show how 'nonsensical' and 'paranoid' this person must be to not only disagree with the official version of the collapses as put forth by the (Bush appointment led) NIST group, but having the nerve to suggest a different explanation. bov 21:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

That's all very well, but in your most recent edit you removed this quote, taken from Salon.com:

Hoffman believes that, in an attempt to discredit skeptics of the mainstream account of the attacks, "the 9/11 planners specifically engineered the attacks in a way that would lead some people to embrace flimsy 9/11 theories," Hoffman further claims: "the government wants people to say that an airplane didn't hit the Pentagon, because the claim makes 9/11 skeptics look silly."

Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that adding selected quotes from references is poor form and contributes to pov quarrels, esp when the people adding those quotes describe the person as a "denier" - obviously they aren't interested in showing the person is rational or normal, but that they fit the mold of a paranoid person who denies basic reality. If we get into the highly charged area of what Hoffman's 'beliefs' are, we'll need to add context so they are not misconstrued. You don't like the context that I see to be necessary. Thus I remove the source of the debate so as not to have to insert the necessary context. The article does not suffer without it and was doing fine without it. bov 22:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You may not like what the reliable sources say about him, but reliable sources are what this article must be based on. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

No one is talking about what I like or don't like. We're talking about what selective quotes to inject pov. Those must have context. You may not like what the context says, but pov quotes must be balanced by the other pov to keep the article npov. bov 21:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The sources are general articles about 9/11 conspiracy theories, not articles about Hoffman. There are no articles in the mainstream media about Hoffman, at least none I see. The quotes are basically the sections of the articles that talk about Hoffman at all. Find another quote about him from a reliable source and maybe we can include it as well. Given the lack of sources outside of the walled garden of conspiracy theory sites, I'm not sure there is enough material here to sustain a biography. Maybe it should be merged into the Researchers questiong... collective biography. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, just as there are likely very few if any mainstream media stories devoted to the thousands and thousands of BIO stubs on here for academics, CEOs, actors, candidates, etc. This page apparently gets more traffic than 08 presidential candidates pages on here, judging by how much time is spent massaging specific quotes for a pov. bov 23:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

hi from pK

Hi, I found your page on Rfc, bio. I'm not sure if you all have decided on calling Hoffman a CT or researcher. I found this site and maybe it will help. [13] Bye, pK--its Good to be the King 14:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Refs

This works,

• <ref name=nym>Stuff here</ref>

and you can follow it with

• <ref name-nym/>

and get another reference to the same citation. This by itself

• <ref name-nym/>

does not work, and just produces a blank footnote. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Don Paul

Why was the biography article on Don Paul bulldozed and shipped overseas (apparently to be melted down at mirror sites), just like the rest of the evidence from the 9/11 crime scene? Ombudsman 22:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It was not bulldozed; Its sections were weakened with thermite, the links were pulled, and the remaining material was destroyed with pre-planted deletion votes. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Paul. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

But why was the article bulldozed? Yes, the article appears to have been deliberately weakened, if not sabotaged, prior to the AfD nomination, but there was no reason at all for the bulldozing of the article and the covering up of Wikilinks to the evidence. It seemed particularly odd that the article was decimated shortly after the release of the new 9/11 Guilt: The Proof Is In Your Hands DVD, produced by Don in collaboration with Hoffman, and the irrefutable acknowledgement of Don's social impact and athletic achievement by a veteran journalist. Since proof of wrongful biography demolition has now been placed before the eyes of at least some of those editors who chose to bulldoze, perhaps said editors would please be kind enough to fix what they wrongfully demolished? Ombudsman 20:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I was just following the instructions of my superiors in the Order. If you do not like the result, you could take it up on the suspiciously-named Wikipedia:Deletion review. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Or you might receive instructions from the Order (this chap, mebbe?) to restore the article properly, via deletion review? It would go a long way to establishing that the editors who ignored the proof before their eyes have not simply been (over)staying the course. Ombudsman 22:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

This endorsement of Hoffman's film by his partner in the film is essentially advertising: "He shows beyond question, I think, that all three buildings were taken down by different methods of controlled demolition," according to Paul, who added "The Twin Towers were exploded as no buildings have been before or since and about seven hours later World Trade Center Building 7 was imploded in a classic, conventional demolition."Brainster 20:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal of cited references

In the lead paragraph is a cited fact about Hoffman which seems to be being removed because of a difference of opinion see this diff.

Since the role of a Wikipedia article is to report on cited facts in WP:RS and since that removal is being made without edit history, and is being made by the same editor, I feel that a consensus should be built for or against this citation. It is a clear citation, referenced accurately, and in a valid publication. The reference is as follows:

Jacobson, Mark. "The Ground Zero Grassy Knoll". New York Magazine. p. 4. Retrieved 2007-01-21. Now the 9/11 Truth movement tells me I saw much more. According to Jim Hoffman, a software engineer and physicist from Alameda, California, where he authors the site 911research.wtc7.net, what I saw was a "classic controlled demolition." This was why, Hoffman contends, 7 WTC dropped so rapidly (in about 6.6 seconds, or almost at the speed of a free-falling object) and so neatly, into its "own footprint."

As you can see it is a full reference. Fiddle Faddle 07:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it is a full reference or there is a difference of opinion, the vast majority of articles never have an article reference in the top paragraph and the obvious purpose of doing this here - unlike these many other articles on wikipedia - is to try to discredit Hoffman or find a reason to affix the "conspiracy theory" brand in the top paragraph. It's transparent as are all the other efforts by Tom H, MONGO, AudeV etc to enforce the viewpoint that the CT's are bogus and should be made fun of and must be labelled as such. bov 19:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You do realise, I am sure, that you are using a wholly spurious argument here. A reference in the lead is perfectly fine and perfectly normal. The purpose is to cite the lead paragraph. If Hoffman is discredited, so be it. If he is validated by the reference, so be it. The thing to do is to stop caring and to stop taking it so persoanlly. But at least you are participating for a change in consensus building. So, if you wish to reach a consensus, start developing one. Pretty much everyone here works by consensus. We do not have to agree with the consensus view, but we do have to abide by it. Fiddle Faddle 21:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Mediation active?

Is this case active or can I close it? --Ideogram 21:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Huh. I don't remember hearing about that mediation. If someone told me at the time, I have forgotten about it. I guess it is not active. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll close it and you can leave a note on my talk page if it needs to be reopened. --Ideogram 01:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

{{911ct}} template

The template should be in this article until the existence of the template is settled. I'm placing in this section as a placeholder. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The template should not be placed in this article.

It appears that you know nothing of the actual work by the person whom this BIO is about, yet you insist on inserting a template here.

Areas of the template debunked by Jim Hoffman:

• Loose Change - Hoffman has written a comprehensive critique of this film which includes the exposure of its many hoaxes and errors. If you think that he should have a TEMPLATE promoting this film on it, then you should first read his review of this film here. Go ahead and read the whole thing . . . then read another critique on the same site here. Then read the flyer that also points out and exposes the weakest points of Loose Change here.

• James Fetzer - If you think that Jim Hoffman's BIO page should have a template promoting James Fetzer, then you probably haven't read Hoffman's critique of Fetzer, which is here. Go ahead and read it all. Then read the other analysis of Fetzer on Hoffman's site, here.

There are many other areas of the template that are critiqued in depth on Hoffman's websites - the 'no plane' theories and their promoters (Meyssan, In Plane Site, etc), common errors by researchers, etc., - by himself and in hosted essays, so to place the template promoting these ideas on Hoffman's BIO page is absurd. Show me another example of someone's bio page on wikipedia that hosts the information which that person explicitly refutes. bov 19:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a navigation template. If it is to be kept (which I'm now leaning against, primarily because of your edit warring), it should appear on the pages of all the articles named, no matter how bizzare their theories are. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, show me another example of someone's bio page on wikipedia that hosts the information which that person explicitly refutes. Go ahead. bov 06:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I've protected the article due to the reversions going on over this. Protection ends in a week... I suggest you all use this talk page to try and discuss the issues further. --Robdurbar 12:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Remarkable, all the articles related to this template are frozen while the reason of the dispute is stuck upon 'em… one way or another this *rap is protected for a month now.Lovelight 12:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Outside opinion

Hey, I was meant to be restarting my current 'wikibreak' today but since Bov contacted me, I thought I'd leave a few comments. I'm not going to engage in the debate any further, but I thought I'd present a view. Bear in mind that this is just from a 5/10 minute overview. My comments shouldn't be taken as being as well proven as those of you who have spent months looking at this page and the various souces!

• If there's any doubt that Hoffman is a conspiracy theorist, then we should reword the sentance in the intro to : Hoffman has published several websites presenting material he says documents the September 11, 2001 attacks. Many commentators such as x,y,z have labeled these " conspiracy theories".
• Apparently Hoffamn has directly contacted Wikipedia asking that he not be labeled a conspiracy theorist? There was a proposed policy once upon a time that people could get info removed about them that they disagreed with, but I think that wasn't passed? To any extent, I havn't actually seen any evidence of this contact?
• "This is just the sort of wackiness defenders of the Official Story harp on to show how gullible and incompetent we conspiracy theorists are supposed to be" - a quote from Hoffman which suggests he doesn't mind being labeled a consipracy theorist
• The article doesn't actually explain what Hoffman says happened! I think this should be a post-protection priority. The template would then be relevant if he agrees with the others on it; if not, then perhaps it could be removed, or edited to inlclude Hoffman's theories seperatly on it.
• Bear in mind that templates don't apply any agreement or paticular association between people. That the same template appears at the foot of Adolf Hitler and Angela Merkel does not mean that she's going to start goosestepping about and invading Poland.

Anyway, those are just a few thoughts. --Robdurbar 10:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Robdurbar, thanks for posting. Hoffman hasn't asked not to be labelled as a conspiracy theorist that I am aware of, only that the template which includes NESARA conspiracy theory should not be on his bio page, as he literally has nothing to with that theory. No 9/11 researcher I've ever met knows anything about this theory. Hoffman does indeed mind being labelled as a conspiracy theorist and says that the Salon statement misrepresents him. However he didn't write in to request removal of that label, rather the template which includes NESARA conspiracy theory. Most of the others on the template also have nothing to do with NESARA conspiracy theory. I think that regardless of what what the general implications are of a template, if someone with a biography page on wikipedia specifically sees a template as misrepresentative, they have the right to request its removal. bov 00:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Jim Hoffman rejects the label "conspiracy theorist". If anyone bothered to actually read his website(s) before making decisions about his page, they would know this. Source: http://911research.wtc7.net/re911/repudiations.html Coconuteire 02:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

"The article doesn't actually explain what Hoffman says happened!" Well, just how surprising could that be? Editing of this article has been mired for far too long in nonsensical name calling]] (in psychology, name calling is synonymous with deliberate infliction of psychological trauma (i.e., brain insult). It is time to put away the schoolyard scheming so that serious editing can take place. Ombudsman 17:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Anyone want to organize a DDOS attack on his website and mirror? These types of ridiculous "researched" "theories" are getting out of control. Definitive proof exists that the planes actually took down the towers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.113.87.10 (talk) 01:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

He says

I'm starting a discussion on the issue of including the phrase "he says" in the introductory paragraph. Please indicate what material you are referring to when you use that term since the use of the term "conspiracy theories" is already included. Exactly what material is not a conspiracy theory but also does not document the attacks. If you cannot show what part is disputable in terms of documenting the attacks but not being part of a conspiracy theory - since that's already accounted for - then I am removing it. bov 16:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Notes from the subject

from http://911research.wtc7.net/re911/repudiations.html

FACT: I do not accept the label of "conspiracy theorist", and consider it an inaccurate and derisive description of myself.

Wikipedia editors that patrol my biography page on Wikipedia.org have repeatedly tagged me with the label of "conspiracy theorist", most recently with the inclusion of a "9/11 conspiracy theories" template. My request that the template be removed because it falsely implies that I endorse such productions as 9/11: In Plane Site and 9/11: The Big Lie was met with silence. Wikipedia editors have used the following passage from an article in Salon.com to justify their labeling me a "conspiracy theorist". (See the discussion behind my biography page.)

   "Hoffman has disputed the no-crash theory concerning The Pentagon and in an interview for Salon, alleged ad hominen attacks on conspiracy theorists, stating, "This is just the sort of wackiness defenders of the Official Story harp on to show how gullible and incompetent we conspiracy theorists are supposed to be."
   The 9/11 deniers Salon.com. 

The quote may be literally accurate. However, it does not convey my tone of voice, which clearly indicated that I was using "we conspiracy theorists" facetiously.

Quite apart from twisted interpreations of words attributed to me, it is clear from a survey of my work that the application of the "conspiracy theorist" label to me has no factual basis. The vast majority of the material I have written for the websites WTC7.net, 911Research.wtc7.net, and 911Review.com, reports on well-documented facts of the attack and aftermath and critiques both official and alternative conspiracy theories of the attack.

<end block of quoted text>

Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosie_O%27Donnell#9.2F11_-_7_World_Trade_Center Rosie O Donnell believes building 7 was "imploded; by your argument she is a "conspiracy theorist" and should be catagorized as such.

Also your labling of Jim Hoffman as a conspiracy theorist is redundant as his page is under the catagory "Individuals challenging the official account of 9/11" which is a sub-catagory of "conspiracy theorists"

76.48.17.241 20:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Guest

Why Jim Hoffman Matters

What's interesting to me about Jim Hoffman's page on here is the tenacity and speed to which certain editors respond to even single word changes. They are frantic to label him in a derogatory manner and have the page set up with alerts so that they can respond within a time frame of less than an hour in many cases. Meanwhile, many many others who do similar work to Jim Hoffman have no such labels of conspiracy theorist nor does anyone respond so adamantly. I hadn't ever really considered how important Jim must be for such a level of attention to be bestowed upon his page, but apparently, it's one of the most important tasks of sites such as this to attempt to take down the leadership of ideas that threaten the powerful, in any small manner possible.

Another amazing but true story of wikipedia, the encyclopedia that has maintains an open door for US intelligence agencies to edit at will without fear of blocking or reversions. 152.131.10.133 (talk) 20:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that's false. IPs apparently coming from the CIA have been blocked. The copyright violation you point to merely indicates that we have to be careful with the blocking reason. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

And if you wouldn't remove the tags in the same action as the substantive edit, we could see what you did without reverting first. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You would revert it, tags or no tags, just as your history of edits of this page within minutes, often, shows. But I'm merely responding to the tag. No point in doing as the tag suggests and then leaving the tag there. If the tag were not there, I would not have to edit at all. Maybe you should take it up with the person who added the tag instead of reverting every word that I add here,

in doing as the tag requests.

The non-blocking of 'sensitive' IPs is described already on the captured text, so no need to try to explain it away with a detail that no one can prove or disprove. 152.131.10.133 (talk) 20:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It does not say that sensitive IPs shouldn't be blocked. It says that they need to be blocked carefully, and reported to the Foundation.

And the BIAS is noted in the consensus. You're violating the 9/11 Arbcom ruling, and should be blocked. As an involved admin, I can't block you, but I can revert your nonsense without consideration of 3RR. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

"I can revert your nonsense." I must admit, I find myself endlessly amazed at how mature, precise, and considerate the administrators are on wikipedia, pursuing the cause of the documentation of all things with a cautious diligence rarely observed in any internet community. Stunning. 152.131.10.133 (talk) 20:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Since I'll soon have the legions of admins after me for merely responding to this tag and not allowing a baseless revert to occur, maybe we should consider talking about the content of the first paragraph, and how many lines are necessary . . . that sort of thing. We should at least pretend to be doing what we pretend to do on here. 152.131.10.133 (talk) 20:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The lead needs more on his serious non-9/11 work. You're primarily adding biased interpretations of his 9/11 work, which is not helpful. You've also manganged to avoid mentioning the book in the lead, which would be more notable than the video if not (essentially) self-published, and might be more notable even if self-published. As to why he matters, I can't answer that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I can add more on his non-9/11 work, but my description of him in that paragraph is in line with the vast majority of those listed in the 911tm template who are not defined only as "conspiracy theorists," yet who share the same views as Hoffman.

Here's AK Dewdney's description --

"He has developed hypotheses which sharply disagree with the official version of the events surrounding the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks (see external links below)."

No CT label there.

Here's Morgan Reynolds' description --

"In 2005, he gained public attention as the first prominent government official to publicly claim that 9/11 was an inside job, and is a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth."

No CT label there.

Here's Barrie Zwicker's description --

"Barrie Wallace Zwicker (born 1934) is an award-winning Canadian alternative media journalist, documentary producer, and political activist. He is most famous for his documentary work, which has dealt primarily with 9/11 theories."

No CT label there.

Here's Jim Fetzer's description --

"He is also known for his advocacy of the 9/11 conspiracy [2] and Kennedy assassination theories."

Mentions he advocates "conspiracy" but no CT label defining his identity there.

Here's Griffin's description --

"Most recently, he proposes 9/11 conspiracy theories that contradict the mainstream account of events."

Again, it shows that he proposes theories, but no CT label defines his identity.

And everyone's favorite to declare as a "9/11 Truth Movement" member, David Icke, has no mention at all of any view on 9/11 in his opening paragraph, only the mention of "a position that has been described as "New Age conspiracism.""

Yet I'm not allowed to use the phrase "a position that has been described as". But Icke's page is? I'm basically just sick of these double standards and have nothing better to do but hold my ground on this issue. I will gladly work to improve the first paragraph, but will not allow denegration of people on here under the guise of a need to label them. 152.131.10.133 (talk) 22:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

"As to why he matters, I can't answer that."

Interesting. An admin arrives here to revert every single change that is made, no matter how small, within minutes, on a page about someone who "doesn't matter." Fascinating. So do you get assigned to this work, or are you able to choose it? It must be annoying to have to spend time on meaningless stuff. 152.131.10.133 (talk) 22:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

citations needed tags

The calls for citations seem pretty meaningless -- if one says that the site has cached many original news articles all one has to do is look at the site and see that yes, indeed it does have a lot of cached news articles. Do we need the New York Times to tell us that news articles are cached there? This is classic circular wikipedia reasoning to waste time for the sake of clogging a page with citation tags.

The Salon article that references Hoffman states, "Hoffman, who runs 9-11 Research and 9-11 Review, two enormous troves of attack-related documentation and analysis." I don't want to repeat that reference since it's already in the article once. bov (talk) 18:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

A web site CANNOT be used as a source that it contains what it says it does, and an offer to sell the video cannot be used as evidence of its provenance or content. Repeat the reference, and I'll check to see whether it supports the statement. Your quote from salon does not support does not support the statements in the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The quote from Salon pretty clearly states exactly what is in the first paragraph. It seems mainly that you dispute anything that isn't your own edit, regardless of the validity of the source. 152.131.10.133 (talk) 17:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Additional errors

You (Bov) have made multiple errors. I'll explain why I believe each one is an error....

1. [14] discussed above. A web site CANNOT be used as a source that it contains what it says it does, and an offer to sell the video cannot be used as evidence of its provenance or content.
2. [15] Even if the {{911tm}} weren't appropriate in the lead, your move moves it below the article. You might consider moving it one paragraph down, but that's rediculous placement.
3. [16] He promotes conspiracy theories, he doesn't discuss alternative theories. Be real.
4. [17] [[controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center|controlled demolition hypothesis for the destruction of the World Trade Center]] is an eater WP:EGG. The other changes seem reasonably appropriate. I'll put them back, if I can.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

A web site CANNOT be used as a source that it contains what it says it does

The Salon article says the same thing so it's not just the website that is being referenced.

No wiki page is required to host a template and not all TM supporters have TWO templates on their page. It mucks up the top of the all of the pages. It is not being removed, merely moved.

He advocates ideas which are labeled as conspiracy theories. There are many other ways to describe the ideas, such as alternative version. As shown above, many people on the template have no strong references to "conspiracy theories," but merely are shown to question the attacks, even if they openly advocate alternative events.

I don't click on the 'WP' links. If an idea isn't obvious, it isn't worth sifting through the maze of wikipropaganda. I have no idea what an easter egg is on here so you'll have to explain it. 152.131.10.133 (talk) 17:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

1. So use the Salon article as a reference THERE. If you do, I'll check it out, but the quote you assert is from Salon doesn't support the text you're adding to the article.
2. You're moving the template BELOW THE TEXT OF THE PAGE, where it will not be seen. It's possible that moving it down one section might be justified, if it doesn't then extend of the end of the page.
3. He advocates ideas which are called "conspiracy theories" by everyone.
4. "Easter egg" means the link title doesn't reflect the link content. Leave it pointing to our name for the article or a reasonably similar form.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I moved the Salon ref. Not sure why you were incapable of that, and instead can only revert, but whatever.

I'm fine with leaving the template where you put it, next to the 9-11 area.

As you know, not everyone calls them conspiracy theories, that is merely your own bias. We will not reach agreement on that issue, so it appears we will be conducting this reverting affair daily over this phrase, which is fine with me, since I have nothing better to do.

Destruction or collapse -- they are about the same thing except that destruction is more broad to encompass the actual meaning of the article, hence it is merely more descriptive so as not to confuse readers -- "so you mean demolition doesn't destroy things but causes them to collapse?" Strange to need to use the word collapse when referencing a demolition theory. 152.131.10.133 (talk) 21:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I moved the Salon to yet different locations.

Although not everyone calls them conspiracy theories, everyone (other than yourself and a few banned editors) recognizes what is meant. I might accept "challenging the mainstream theory of the 9/11 attacks." What you wrote is highly NPOV. (I also can't think of a good way of what you wrote grammatical.) Furthermore, most of the references call them "conspiracy theories".

Your link is still an Easter WP:EGG, and shouldn't be there.

We have (as yet) no source for the video other than Hoffman himself, which is not adequate. Restored that {{fact}} tag.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I've lost track of where you think the Salon ref should go -- what is the rationale for moving it from the description you say needs sourcing?

I don't think we can really surmise what "everyone recognizes is meant" by a particular phrase without a crystal ball, but it's pretty clear that the purpose of it is to denigrate, and in the same way we can guess what they think it means, we can also guess what they feel from the use of such a phrase -- "nutcases that I need to avoid to be considered normal." In this way, wikipedia and Bush Co share a similar POV goal.

I think my link is fine. It is not a significantly different phrasing and such changes to original are made all over wikipedia for numerous grammatical and semantic reasons, so there is nothing new here.

So if we don't provide more sources for the video, then it doesn't exist? Why should I spend my endless time looking that up when you're the one making the demand? You can do it yourself since only you have such a criteria. 152.131.10.133 (talk) 22:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

"Documentation" does not mean "news archives". Got a source for that, anywhere?

"destruction" is still an WP:EGG if you can create and support a #redirect from controlled demolition hypothesis for the destruction of the World Trade Center to controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center, and use the former in the article, I wouldn't have an objection, but I do object somewhat to the redirect.

And we need a source other than the authors that the book and video exist. In fact, we really can't use his web sites as references in the article except as to assert that he said something (actually present on the site). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

First you say I'm not including the book or video for some nefarious reason, then when I do you add citation tags as though every noun on the page needs proof of existance, then you remove the whole mention of either of them when challenged to *yourself* do the work of the proof that only you are calling for. A google search for the authors names and the video name returns 23,400 hits but you still don't believe it exists . . . and you call the "truthers" paranoid or delusional? It appears this dust-up and blocking and reverting on your part serves mainly to waste time. Of course, it appears this might all be more interesting for you than reverting vandlism on the page 2008. 152.131.10.133 (talk) 00:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Change of mind omitted

This article presents Hoffman as an opponent of the theory that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon without mentioning that this was his original view:

http://web.archive.org/web/20040213031301/911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/conclusions/no757impact.html

---

No 757 Hit the Pentagon Evidence Precludes Flight 77 having Impacted the Pentagon

---

While Hoffman has the right to change his mind like anyone else, a complete article which is supposed to be about Hoffman should state clearly something like "Hoffman was an early advocate of the idea that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, but subsequently changed his mind and began accusing people who held to his own previous view of being CIA agents." That would be a more honest account of his development. As it is, this article just misleads the reader into thinking that Hoffman was originally a critic of theories that something other than Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. That is obviously not correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.86.226.21 (talk) 13:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there is no evidence for Hoffman ever accusing anyone of being a "CIA agent", which is why that won't be being posted on this page. Hoffman describes his position on the Pentagon [18]. His website also describes the harassment and intimidation he was subjected to for not supporting the "no plane" claims at the Pentagon -- [19]. ScholarTruthJustice (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy label again

Back to the "conspiracy theorist" debate again, in an effort to label Hoffman. Note that world renowned conspiracist David Icke, who says that the WTC was demolished and claims that people in power are actually lizards, has no such label on his lead --

David Vaughan Icke (pronounced /aɪk/; born April 29, 1952) is a British writer and public speaker who has devoted himself since 1990 to researching "who and what is really controlling the world."[1] A former professional football player, reporter, television sports presenter, and spokesman for the Green Party, he is the author of 20 books explaining his views.

Icke argues that he has developed a moral and political worldview that combines New Age spiritualism with a passionate denunciation of what he sees as totalitarian trends in the modern world, a position that has been described as "New Age conspiracism."[2]

At the heart of Icke's theories is the view that the world is ruled by a secret group called the "Global Elite" or "Illuminati," which he has linked to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, an anti-Semitic hoax.[3][4] In 1999, he published The Biggest Secret, in which he wrote that the Illuminati are a race of reptilian humanoids known as the Babylonian Brotherhood, and that many prominent figures are reptilian, including George W. Bush, Queen Elizabeth II, Kris Kristofferson, and Boxcar Willie.[3][5]

According to Political Research Associates, Icke's speaking engagements can draw a substantial audience in Canada.[6] During an October 1999 speaking tour there, he received a standing ovation from students after a four-hour speech at the University of Toronto,[7] while his books were removed from the shelves of Indigo Books across Ontario after protests from the Canadian Jewish Congress.[8]

If Icke's lead can say "a position that has been described as . . . conspiracism," there's no reason that Hoffman's page must instead say he has conspiracy theory websites instead of websites that have been described as "conspiracy theory" sites. 76.102.212.231 (talk) 04:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Icke isn't exactly a 9/11 conspiracist; he's just a general conspiracist. Hoffman is just a 9/11 conspiracist — his other activities are almost reasonable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The term "conspiracy theorist" implies that someone would theorize about things that are either generally accepted as being conspiracies or things that the person would consider a priori (i.e. not as a result of the person's research) to be conspiracies. What makes "conspiracy theorist" a label is (a) the assumption that the existence of a conspiracy would be assumed a priori and (b) that the word "theorist", rather than "researcher" or "analyst" is being used.  Cs32en  14:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It's strange to me is how obsessed certain editors are to maintain the "conspiracy theorist" label on Hoffman's page, while ignoring the numerous other people who they would logically need to apply the same label to for their work suggesting alternative theories of the 9/11 attack, such as Alexander Dewdney: "He has developed hypotheses which sharply disagree with the official version of the events surrounding the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks (see external links below)," David Shayler: "Shayler has since become controversial for his opinions regarding the September 11, 2001 attacks", Webster Tarpley: "Webster Griffin Tarpley is an author, journalist, lecturer, and critic of US foreign and domestic policy. Tarpley maintains that the September 11 attacks were engineered by a rogue network of the military industrial complex and intelligence agencies," David Ray Griffin: "More recently, Griffin has published a number of books on the subject of the September 11 attacks, suggesting that there was a conspiracy involving some elements of the United States government," etc. What the special obsession with Hoffman and this label so that it has to be reposted within minutes of it being changed? Reader2010 (talk) 19:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I (or the article) said he's a conspiracy theorist. (Well, I guess it does, and I'm not sure I see adequate evidence for the category.) However, he clearly published and maintains 9/11 conspiracy theory web sites. We cannot necessarily assume he believes what he wrote there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

But the pages of the above people don't say they are writing "conspiracy theory" books or make claims about "conspiracy theories". Whether it's the websites or the books or the person, it's a label you are attaching to Hoffman as though none of the others are voicing what you consider conspiracy theories, but only he is. That's in part why I am altering the phrase to qualify it to keep consistency among the bios. When you fix all those other ones, come back and we can talk. Reader2010 (talk) 21:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Do we really need to tag the phrase "conspiracy theory websites" with the dozens of reliable sources which call them that? They are conspiracy theory websites, and even other conspiritists agree. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The point is that the label is being applied inconsistently -- when all these other pages have the tag, then Hoffman can too. To say that he is somehow especially in need of the tag when people as popular as Icke are not makes no sense. Reader2010 (talk) 21:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

That looks like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. However, this last change at least doesn't violate WP:WEASEL. I've modified it, hopefully, to something we can all agree on. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

What?

I'm pretty sure we all agree Meigs being a part of Entertainment Weekly has no relevance to this article at all, so I deleted it to make that sentence much less clunky. Spotle99 (talk) 11:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jim Hoffman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5tmFOBanU?url=http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf to http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jim Hoffman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100103015053/http://visibility911.com/blog/?p=1351 to http://visibility911.com/blog/?p=1351

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)